Hey Larchmont, after you test drive the new TL let us know if you will be making any changes to your "Best Car Under 80k" statements

(For those that havent been around long enough to know what the hell I am talking about, "Best Car Under 80K" was massive thread that Larch started on the old site, where he stated that the TSX was the best car money could buy. Just wondering if his oponion has changed)

 

The TSX is the best "Total Package" that money can buy for $26,990, but if you raise the stakes to 80K, then the TSX gets laughed at... The TSX cannot compete with what you can get for 35-40k, (ex. BMW 330i) not to mention what you can get for 80K.

The new BMW M5 is going to be a monster.

Mercedes Benz E55 AMG is already a monster.

I doubt that Larch would post something so foolish for any other reason than to spark some debate...

 

Hey Buff..I agree and was one that argued that the TSX was in no way the best car for under 80k. I think most people felt this way as well, except for Larchmont who was convinced that there was no car better than the TSX. I dont think he was trying to spark debate though..I think his thoughts and opinions were genuine.

Anyways, what I am wondering is if the new TL is now the champ in his mind.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not Again! Please!

(where did the "unstable" gif go?)

 

I think Larchmont puts a whole lot of emphasis on reliability. This eliminates the German makes, I think.

Have you seen the commercial where the wife is battling a monster in their living room, eventually pushing it back into the hood of a E55 AMG in the garage? She says to her husband "Honey, you forgot to lock the car again!"

At first I thought it was another Capital One battling-credit-card-debt type of commercial, but I loved it.

 

oh man.....i love those new e55......soon, they'll have the e65's. as if the car didn't have enough guts already!

 

That is a GREAT commercial. And probably the first one of its type. You don't see many commercials for the highest of high performance cars. Good stuff.

516 lb-ft of torque.....

 

I would have to think the new TL will trump the TSX in the "Best for Under 80K" category.

- It starts at $33K
- Its available in both Auto and 6 Sp
- Its available with an LSD
- It has the "required" V6 needed to apparently apease the I4 naysayers
- Noone will complain about lack of low end tourque
- It should be just as or maybe only slightly less reliable than the TSX
- DVD 5.1 (great stereo)
- Bluetooth
- It looks great

The only thing that may hurt it in this category is its FWD platform which to me anyway is a plus. Again this car has one potential fault, and its only a fault to those who feel FWD is far less superior than RWD.

The TL gets my vote anyway for "Best car Under 80K" pending a test drive of course, although I don't expect to be dissapointed.

 

Hey, maybe we'll get lucky and one of our moderators will move this thread before Larch has a chance to find it!

 

By larch's judging points, though, the TL is not "sporty". I mean, I'm sure that the new TL is more sporty than the old one, but I think he'd say it still loses to the TSX. Frankly, so do I.

You won't change larch's mind easily....

 

I don't think Larch's point was to ever say the TSX is the best performing car for under 80K. I think his point was that for the money the TSX is the best car period.

Sure the 330 and E55 are better cars in terms or Luxury and performance, but they cost much, much more than the TSX and are likely not as reliable. The TSX trumps them in reliability yet comes to within a few fractions of their Luxury and content yet for half or 3/4 of the price.

The need TL will in all likelyhood outperform a 330 in every concevalble catergory save at the limit handling and road feel. So Yes IMO the TL is a far better car than the 330 especially considering the 330 costs 10K or more.

 

What is LSD, please? I always get that initialism mixed up with some church and the drug. But what's LSD in a car?

Regarding the "required" V6 and RWD, what would be a ideal and very revealing would be for people to evaluate a car without seeing the specs of whether a car had a V6 or I4 AND whether a car had FWD or RWD. Recent published commentary on the TSX has revealed "slight" differences in handling under extreme situations between the TSX and some other vaunted "benchmark" RWD shport sedan.

I see no reason why reliability shouldn't be a factor in the Best Under $80K category. It's a sign of quality in engineering, implementation, and assembly. I don't see how makers of cars with mediocre or poor reliability could be tops on anyone's list. If it's only because of potent marketing specs and advertising revenue, then that would be very shallow.

 

Limited Slip Differential.

You make some good points Brad. I wish people could test cars blindfolded so they don't get a look at the emblem's on the car and on the steering wheel.

 

It's something that we have to remember when we read "reviews"--how shallow or substantial their evaluations are.

We're all human beings capable of predispositions and pre-judgement.

Ah, Limited Slip Differential. I never would have guessed. I have no clue. I'll do a Google search on that.

 

Don't forget Larch is obsessed with size. So he may feel the TL drives "too big" and is not as nimble and sporty feeling.

 

Quick answer (edit: actually not especially quick!). Limited slip differential is exactly what it sounds like. It limits the difference in speed that can occur between the two driven wheels.

Picture the alternative (an open diff). If one wheel was on ice and one was on grippy tarmac, the open diff will allow all engine power to go to the wheel with least resistance (ice) and the car will not (barely) move.

A limited slip would only allow a certain difference between the wheels to occur before it would turn the other wheel too. Different LSDs 25%, 50% locking ratio allow different amounts of slip. Realize that you'd never want zero slip because the wheels of a car actually do need to rotate at different speeds for example when cornering, but you might want to limit the slip.

While it might appear that a limited slip is an adverse weather traction aid, in fact that role is almost never the case in modern cars where traction control/VSA/DSC/ESP whatever you want to call it is common. Traction control systems work by cutting power, rather than redistributing it, so they don't promote better performance, just greater safety.

LSD is mostly useful on performance cars during extreme cornering or acceleration situations to allow the car to "put the power down" rather than spinning one of its wheels. For example on a powerful FWD car, an LSD would allow you to accelerate fast from a stop while turning without just spinning one wheel and going nowhere.

I'm sure someone will want to disagree with me, and I'm not saying my description above is definitive, but that's my understanding of it.

C. <-- mostly a rwd guy, most with LSD. I did have a 93 Sentra SER (great car) with a FWD LSD.

 

Yeah, where is this thread? Had it, but lost it.

I love it -- Glad to see this resurrected. It was on this thing on the old site that I first "met" FDL. Of course he thought I was ridiculous, as did everybody else. Even me, except when I reminded myself what I was talking about.

As Clutch and some others remember, I was never really talking about "best" car. I was talking about, "What the best car that happens to meet my own personal criteria, which are such-and-such." Dom is giving me a break by saying I meant "the best car for the money," but I wasn't even taking that into account. What I was saying was that among all cars even up to $80K that meet those criteria, the TSX might be the very best.

My mistake -- and, on the other hand, what made the thread so "popular" -- was that I picked a bad title for it. I should never have called it "Best Car Up To $80K?" (Yes, I did put a "question mark" after it.) If I had called the thread "I think the TSX is the best car that meets my stupid criteria," there wouldn't have been any controversy.

Oh -- here were the criteria:

(1) Above-average reliability
(2) FWD or AWD, not RWD
(3) Sporty feel
(4) Reasonably good handling, performance, and comfort

I didn't think it was such an unusual set of criteria, but it turned out it was. People came on and said they disagreed with the criteria, they'd be happy to sacrifice reliability for exciting performance. Many people said the FWD thing was completely nuts, and we got into an interesting discussion of how much of a problem RWD really is in snow/ice/rain.

The way it all started was that when I went to buy a car in early 2002, I was shocked to find that there really wasn't anything that I was happy with. I got a TL-S, but not very happily. When the TSX came out -- voila, at last a car for me. I looked at the whole market again, and found that even if you went up a couple of price points -- let's say, up to 50K -- there wasn't a better car that met the criteria. So I started wondering, how high do you have to go in price before you arrived at something else? And to me, the answer was NOWHERE. The only reason I stopped at $80K is that above 80, you get to cars that are too different from anything that I know about.

I wound up being convinced that indeed the TSX is the best car that meets those criteria, even up to 80K. From what people said, I thought the best challengers at the time were the Mazda 6 and the Accord coupe. The new TL of course has a chance to overtake everything. But none of this was ever meant to say those are the "best cars." Just the best that meet those criteria, which happen to be my criteria. And I do think it's remarkable that a $27K car might be the best, unless you really happen to think the criteria were stupid, which a lot of people did.

 

Since the TSX has enough power for me, the fact that the TL has more doesn't mean much to me. If the handling of the TL is inferior, I'll probably feel that the TSX is a "better" car. The main chance for the TL to rank as "better" to me is if it takes the "bumps" better. Preliminary word from my dealer is, it doesn't -- not significantly anyway.

Main things I'm going to be watching are handling, and "bumps."

 

I hate to burst your bubble, but the TSX is a great car for under 30k ONLY!

I hate how fanboys keep thinking their car is the best around. There will ALWAYS be something better and in the TSX's case, there are a LOT of better cars out there even w/o the "under 80k range" STi, Evo, TL, M3, M5, G35, 350Z, various AMG Benzs, a few Porsches, you could even get a new NSX for under 80k. Those were only a few in a long list.

EDIT: I just read youre other post on your criteria and stuff.
You said the Mazda 6 and the Accord is what you thinks suit you best besises the TSX. Seems like youre not a "sporty" driver. Isnt the 6 like 22k and the Accord coupe 25-58k or something like that? I know u said its just a range or something like that, but thats a huge range. And why dont you "understand" cars over 80k?

Based on your "TSX, Accord coupe, Mazda 6" ideal car and if you can afford 50k for car, I say youre small minding yourself big time.
I'd take a M5 or M3 anyday over the TSX. Even though I do love my car, there are a lot of other cars I'd take over the TSX if my budget allowed it.

 

STC, I wonder if you even read Larch's post ? If you did, Read it again.

I seriously doubt Larch is a Fanboy. If he is, he's the oldest Fanboy around

 

(Oh Larch, you've got me going again.)

The only people for whom RWD is a "problem" in rain is people who don't have good tires, traction control and a little self control. I can drive in pouring rain in complete confidence and pass the fools dawdling along. I have RWD, I ALWAYS have good tires and while I leave TC on, it almost never ends up getting activated. As water gets deeper your (front) tires hydroplane, but this affects cars pretty much equally.

Snow and ice is a little different. I would certainly place more value on FWD/AWD if I lived somewhere it was snowy/icy for more than 2/3 days a year. However, I can absolutely assure you that snow tires on a RWD car are more than adequate for snowy weather. In deep snow you need chains. Many people don't want the hassle of buying/changing extra sets of tires and try to go the whole year with FWD and all seasons. These are the people who rate FWD as safer in the winter. And that's correct, based on their needs/habits. However, if you're willing to buy the right equipment, you can enjoy the handling characteristics of RWD on summer tires in the summer and use snow tires in the winter with complete confidence. Some people consider that the best of all worlds, for just a little extra expense and hassle. (I don't include myself in that, particularly.)

By far the biggest factor in snow/ice is DRIVING ABILITY and experience. A good driver in a 1966 RWD pickup on generic tires can drive rings around bad drivers in 4x4s on packed snow and ice. I have seen it (it wasn't me, incidentally - I'm not bragging here).

I don't have a problem with FWD - I have owned and liked numerous FWD cars and I will own them again. I'm not saying RWD is superior either. What I AM saying is that RWD is not or does not need to be the problem people claim. Many of the people who claim this (not Larchmont) are younger drivers with less experience (and certainly less RWD experience), for whom it might well be a problem. That shouldn't be seen as a criticism of RWD, just as a lack of skill/experience on the part of the speaker.

</rant off and apologies to the many I have offended with the above>

Have a good weekend folks.

C. <-- about to drive home in 80 degree sunshine, no snow tires needed here.

 

Clearly, there are different criteria and priorities about what constitutes "better".

For some people, "better" means better quality, which means better engineering, better assembly and finish, AND better reliability. Value is also a measure of quality.

Various published surveys--mentioned here on this forum--have burst the bubbles of many of those marques you indicate as "better".

And simply having the money to buy a more expensive car isn't a good reason to buy one if the value and quality aren't there to prove it.

 

Oh boy! What's a FanBoy, please? I'm even more clueless than what an LSD is. Fan blows air and pollutants. It also cools the air if it's not too hot. It could also blow hot air.

 

Well said.

 

I guess I'm one of those....j/k...

Good point you've made. I did't have a chance to look at your old post. But what you've said here kinda supports my point. Car selection is a subjective matter. As long as it meets up with the personal criteria, it really doesn't matter what kinda car he/she acquires.

p/s: Best car for me under 80K?
2004 Audi S4/BMW M3

 

The new TL "might" be faster in straight line acceleration, but there is no way that this car will out handle, out brake or hold a corner like a 330i. So if all you do it drive on a straight line, you will be happy with that TL, but if you want/need to hold a corner every now and then or lock up those brakes to avoid an accident, I think the confident choice would be the 330i. And the TL is more of a 5-Series match-up anyway, but that again is 2 different leagues...

 

I knew you or Gilbo would respond to that post. Obviously, going in a straight line is not my thing, see my Avatar. But the point I was trying to make regarding the TL vs 330 is simple. You'll get 95% of the handling and superior acceleration + luxury + reliability all for 10K less.

There are some who would still rather have the 330, and I can understand that, but I'm not one of those people.

 

Lets go with 75% in handling & fit-n-finish, and you don't have a clue about reliability yet, the last TL went through transmissions faster than wiper blades...

 

75% sounds kind of low to me, but neither of us really know so we'll see. As for reliability, sure the old TL's dropped trannies but CR still feels they have above average reliability and reccomends the car. The same can't be said for the 3 series.

Either way it really is too early to tell, but things look very promising for the TL.

 

Well I am not arguing BMW reliability, but at the same time I am not handing it out to the new TL before it earns it. And tell me when things don't look promising for a new car that is about to hit the market, it is called "hype". Few cars actually live up to the hype...

 

i think the next RL, regardless if it's $40, $50, or $60k will be equivocally the best overall car one can get for under $80k. if it really does come with IMA 4-wheel drive, it'll be among the class leaders in acceleration and MPG for sure. at any rate, if its way better than the new TL and TSX, it should be something really special.

 

My bad -- my wording was misleading.

When I said that we got into "an interesting discussion of how much of a problem RWD really is in snow/ice/rain," I didn't mean that we drilled home the point of how much of a problem it is, but that we debated whether or not it's a problem, and if so, to what extent. A lot of people thought it wasn't a significant problem, and in fact your post happens to be a nice summary of what they said -- even though you never saw it.

 

But its handling will most likely fall way behind the TL and TSX. It will also drive like a big car and not really have a sporty feel. I'd even guess it will be slower than the TL.

Its really all a matter of how you deine "better"...and everyone will have there own definition of this. This is the conclusion we came to after days of posting on the old site.

Anyways, I never intended my post to re-has the old argument (although it looks like its too late! ). I just wanted to know if larch changed his mind.

 

Oh. Well. Forget I mentioned it then

 

Then you must either a) know a heck of a lot more about the next RL than I do, or b) have an enormous amount of faith in Acura, who I would suggest has been much more successful in its compact to mid size cars than its larger ones.

C.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with re-hashing.

No, I haven't changed my mind, except that I had been assuming the new TL would take over the "top spot." And now I'm not so sure.

BTW I don't think any of this would ever have been controversial (or interesting) if I had just said that what I meant was: There's no car at all that I prefer, even up to $80K. And it's still true, pending what we see in the TL. There's no other car on the market right now that I'd rather have as my car. Still true.

But that's not very interesting, is it?

 

Agreed.

But what I have always wondered is... what car OVER 80K would you actually consider? I think you could have even gone as far as naming the thread "best car at any price, of all time" Would that change anything for you?

 

I'm flattered that one of the burning issues of our time is, What car does Larchmont really like best. :whocares:

Over $80K, the thing is that you get into cars that are so far removed from anything I understand, that I just don't know. I don't even understand some of the words -- I mean, Jensen Interceptor??? Sounds like a free safety to me.

 

Over 80k is easy. Ferrari Enzo or the Porsche GT3

 

I did read his post. Hes saying that he cant find a car that pleases HIM like the TSX up to the 80k mark.
He said he wanted Sporty, AWD or FWD, good handling and performance and reliablility. There are a LOT of cars that fit in his criteria. Since the TSX is a sedan, I'll name some. G35, M5, C32 AMG, S430, any E class benz, Lexus GS400, etc. These are all "better" than the TSX. Only thing not as good is the price. Thats why he was comparing the TSX to the Accord to the Mazda 6.

Fanboy is a term for a hardcore fan of anything. The thing they're a fan of is better than anything else.
Ex: Im a fan of Superman. I think Superman is the greatest Superhero around. People will argue w/ me about it, but I will always think Superman is the best (which he is btw )