CL-S 6MT v. 03+ Accord V6 6MT, thoughts?
02-25-2012, 02:45 PM
#41
Glad you pointed out the seats civic. I drove to to Boston and back in the same day a couple of months ago and had no issues or complaints. I can't speak for the accord but my legend made my ass sore from here to Virginia beach. For the most part you would buy the CLS for the extra bells and whistles that are normally found on Acura and skimped on Honda (that's a general statement). I enjoy owning cars that aren't so common so for that purpose the CLS6 appeals to me.
The following users liked this post:
civicdrivr (02-25-2012)
02-25-2012, 08:43 PM
#42
Banned
Thats BS. Accords appeal across a very broad range. The CL is mostly unknown. Only now are they selling quick because they are worth so little.
A 2003 Accord Coupe EX-L V6 sold new for $25,900 (MSRP). According to KBB (not the end-all for consumer prices, but Im using the same source for both), it is worth $9,974 with 120,000 miles - suggested retail that is. It retained 39% of its value.
A 2003 Acura CL-S 6MT sold for $30,550 (MSRP). With 120,000 miles, it is worth $9,726 - again, suggested retail. The CL retained 32% of its value.
Im not saying that the CL is crap. If I could go back in time, I wouldnt change a thing. I would still be happy to own a CL. But Im not a fanboy and I will be quick to point out its short-comings.
A few more points:
-The Accord has traction control, even with the 6MT. The CL-S6 does not.
-The Accord is built on a new ACE body structure, and is safer. It received all-around 5 stars from the NHTSA. I cant find crash safety for the CL.
A 2003 Accord Coupe EX-L V6 sold new for $25,900 (MSRP). According to KBB (not the end-all for consumer prices, but Im using the same source for both), it is worth $9,974 with 120,000 miles - suggested retail that is. It retained 39% of its value.
A 2003 Acura CL-S 6MT sold for $30,550 (MSRP). With 120,000 miles, it is worth $9,726 - again, suggested retail. The CL retained 32% of its value.
Im not saying that the CL is crap. If I could go back in time, I wouldnt change a thing. I would still be happy to own a CL. But Im not a fanboy and I will be quick to point out its short-comings.
A few more points:
-The Accord has traction control, even with the 6MT. The CL-S6 does not.
-The Accord is built on a new ACE body structure, and is safer. It received all-around 5 stars from the NHTSA. I cant find crash safety for the CL.
02-25-2012, 09:01 PM
#43
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
You are absolutely correct, I got that mixed up with the 8G Accord. That still doesnt take away from the fact that the 7G Accord received 5 star total crash protection. I was only able to locate crash ratings for the '03 TL, which received 4 star ratings on everything but the side passenger - which received 5 stars.
02-25-2012, 09:31 PM
#44
Banned
Thats BS. Accords appeal across a very broad range. The CL is mostly unknown. Only now are they selling quick because they are worth so little.
A 2003 Accord Coupe EX-L V6 sold new for $25,900 (MSRP). According to KBB (not the end-all for consumer prices, but Im using the same source for both), it is worth $9,974 with 120,000 miles - suggested retail that is. It retained 39% of its value.
A 2003 Acura CL-S 6MT sold for $30,550 (MSRP). With 120,000 miles, it is worth $9,726 - again, suggested retail. The CL retained 32% of its value.
Im not saying that the CL is crap. If I could go back in time, I wouldnt change a thing. I would still be happy to own a CL. But Im not a fanboy and I will be quick to point out its short-comings.
A few more points:
-The Accord has traction control, even with the 6MT. The CL-S6 does not.
-The Accord is built on a new ACE body structure, and is safer. It received all-around 5 stars from the NHTSA. I cant find crash safety for the CL.
A 2003 Accord Coupe EX-L V6 sold new for $25,900 (MSRP). According to KBB (not the end-all for consumer prices, but Im using the same source for both), it is worth $9,974 with 120,000 miles - suggested retail that is. It retained 39% of its value.
A 2003 Acura CL-S 6MT sold for $30,550 (MSRP). With 120,000 miles, it is worth $9,726 - again, suggested retail. The CL retained 32% of its value.
Im not saying that the CL is crap. If I could go back in time, I wouldnt change a thing. I would still be happy to own a CL. But Im not a fanboy and I will be quick to point out its short-comings.
A few more points:
-The Accord has traction control, even with the 6MT. The CL-S6 does not.
-The Accord is built on a new ACE body structure, and is safer. It received all-around 5 stars from the NHTSA. I cant find crash safety for the CL.
02-25-2012, 09:34 PM
#45
TQ > MPG
IMO traction control is a neagtive for the Accord, not a positive. I'm so happy I dont have to turn VSA off every time I drive, or worry about it going bad.
I think the CL-S6 looks alot better, but thats subjective.
Dont forget standard HID's, Bose, and auto A/C/heat. I dont think those are standards on the Accord.
BTW I'm in metro detroit. If you want me to check the car out for you before you buy I'd do it, as long as it wasnt crazy far from me.
I think the CL-S6 looks alot better, but thats subjective.
Dont forget standard HID's, Bose, and auto A/C/heat. I dont think those are standards on the Accord.
BTW I'm in metro detroit. If you want me to check the car out for you before you buy I'd do it, as long as it wasnt crazy far from me.
02-25-2012, 11:51 PM
#46
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
02-26-2012, 12:23 AM
#47
Yeah I know what you guys mean that's one reason I switched to using premium gas. Oil is more serious though I only use mobil 1 10W-30 advanced full synthetic and only honda filters. I always figured the ecu would compensate for using regular gas, which it does like someone mentioned.
02-26-2012, 12:32 AM
#48
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
5W-20 is quite thin. Honda chose that for fuel economy. 10W-30 provides a bit more protection. I've been running it for a long time now - although I dont use synthetic. There was quite a lengthy debate on v 6 p regarding it.
02-26-2012, 02:45 AM
#49
Same reason I use 5W-30, for the added protection but they spec'ed that too back in 2001. But I'm sure running a little thin is fine since the engine likes to rev so much and I'm sure power maybe reduced a little from the extra drag.
And they say 0W-20 can be used in place of 5W-20 so in reality, the J32 can run 0W-20.
And they say 0W-20 can be used in place of 5W-20 so in reality, the J32 can run 0W-20.
02-26-2012, 03:34 AM
#50
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Yea, I wouldnt.
02-26-2012, 01:01 PM
#51
Advanced
I'd go with the Accord. I have never driven a CL-S but I would assume it would be similar to a 98-02 Accord. I owned a 2002 Accord coupe V6 for about a year and I owned a 2006 Accord coupe V6 6mt for about three years, and there was a huge difference in the cars. The interior of the 06 Accord was nicer than the 02, the drivetrain seemed much better, and the handling was a lot tighter in the 06. Not to mention all of the little things.
Again, I have never driven a CL-S, but I would think it's like driving an 02 Accord with a 6speed. If that's the case, go with the 03-07 Accord.
Again, I have never driven a CL-S, but I would think it's like driving an 02 Accord with a 6speed. If that's the case, go with the 03-07 Accord.
02-26-2012, 02:13 PM
#52
Burning Brakes
I'd go with the Accord. I have never driven a CL-S but I would assume it would be similar to a 98-02 Accord. I owned a 2002 Accord coupe V6 for about a year and I owned a 2006 Accord coupe V6 6mt for about three years, and there was a huge difference in the cars. The interior of the 06 Accord was nicer than the 02, the drivetrain seemed much better, and the handling was a lot tighter in the 06. Not to mention all of the little things.
Again, I have never driven a CL-S, but I would think it's like driving an 02 Accord with a 6speed. If that's the case, go with the 03-07 Accord.
Again, I have never driven a CL-S, but I would think it's like driving an 02 Accord with a 6speed. If that's the case, go with the 03-07 Accord.
02-26-2012, 02:30 PM
#53
For the added protection. Basically exactly what civicdrivr said. What's another good filter to use. I know I used to use a wix filter on my mustang, a lot of people use them for race filters.
02-26-2012, 03:27 PM
#54
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
I use the Puralator PureOne PL14459. Its highly regarded on BTOG.
02-26-2012, 05:01 PM
#56
02-27-2012, 09:53 AM
#57
IMO traction control is a neagtive for the Accord, not a positive. I'm so happy I dont have to turn VSA off every time I drive, or worry about it going bad.
I think the CL-S6 looks alot better, but thats subjective.
Dont forget standard HID's, Bose, and auto A/C/heat. I dont think those are standards on the Accord.
BTW I'm in metro detroit. If you want me to check the car out for you before you buy I'd do it, as long as it wasnt crazy far from me.
I think the CL-S6 looks alot better, but thats subjective.
Dont forget standard HID's, Bose, and auto A/C/heat. I dont think those are standards on the Accord.
BTW I'm in metro detroit. If you want me to check the car out for you before you buy I'd do it, as long as it wasnt crazy far from me.
02-27-2012, 10:31 AM
#58
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
HIDs in non-HID reflector housings = 
02-27-2012, 03:49 PM
#60
I Wanna Beer
This is true. Then again anyone buying a car as an investment is an idiot. The CL will get better gas mileage than the Accord. Makes more power unless you go with the newer models.
02-27-2012, 07:48 PM
#61
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
The Accord V6-6, even while being beat on, gets low 30s. Id say the mileage is comparable.
02-28-2012, 02:48 AM
#62
Burning Brakes
02-28-2012, 03:36 AM
#63
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
02-28-2012, 03:18 PM
#65
dual zone climate control is such a gimic
really.... it's not like your side is x and the other side it y... ur just mixing 2 temps of air.
it was made so the wife can change hers and u 2 don't have to argue the whole journey over who gets the temp they like...
it's literally a placebo imho
really.... it's not like your side is x and the other side it y... ur just mixing 2 temps of air.
it was made so the wife can change hers and u 2 don't have to argue the whole journey over who gets the temp they like...
it's literally a placebo imho
02-28-2012, 03:20 PM
#66
I Wanna Beer
dual zone climate control is such a gimic
really.... it's not like your side is x and the other side it y... ur just mixing 2 temps of air.
it was made so the wife can change hers and u 2 don't have to argue the whole journey over who gets the temp they like...
it's literally a placebo imho
really.... it's not like your side is x and the other side it y... ur just mixing 2 temps of air.
it was made so the wife can change hers and u 2 don't have to argue the whole journey over who gets the temp they like...
it's literally a placebo imho
02-28-2012, 03:26 PM
#67
TQ > MPG
Every car I've ever had dual zone it was pointless. Its not like anyone can really tell a difference, unless its one extreme or the other. If anything its just one more thing to go wrong.
Then again I may be the exception. I dont think I have EVER used the auto temp in my CL-S, and my mustang doesnt even have heat let alone A/C. lol
Then again I may be the exception. I dont think I have EVER used the auto temp in my CL-S, and my mustang doesnt even have heat let alone A/C. lol
02-28-2012, 03:39 PM
#68
I agree, the MPG gains is minimal and not enough for me to do a trade off for added protection.
Depends how long you plan to run the oil for. If it's short like 5k, save your money and run whatever. If its longer (6-8k), then run a medium grade filter like civic's PureOne, Wix/Napa Gold (same filter). If your going extended drain (10k+) with an oil like Amsoil, Royal Purple or Mobil 1 EP, then use high end filters like Amsoil, RP, Mobil 1, Fram Extended Guard, Bosch Distance Plus, Purolator Synthetic, Napa Platnium or K&N.
I would consider the OEM filter a midgrade only because it has cardboard endcaps and is made by Fram but is built like their Tough Guard.
And civic is right in suggesting to check out BITOG.
I would consider the OEM filter a midgrade only because it has cardboard endcaps and is made by Fram but is built like their Tough Guard.
And civic is right in suggesting to check out BITOG.
The following users liked this post:
civicdrivr (02-28-2012)
02-28-2012, 06:00 PM
#69
Instructor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Birmingham, Al
Age: 42
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
11 Posts
This really is a silly argument. They are so close in price, go with whatever makes you the happiest. I don't like the looks of either car, frankly...but the 6 speed with the LSD and extra power of the CL swayed me.
02-29-2012, 01:24 PM
#70
I don't believe that to be true. The J30A4 is more fuel efficient than the J32A2. Plus the Accord is more aerodynamic and weighs less. Its a no brainer. I know with my Accord V6 5AT I get between 24 and 26MPG all city driving depending on how my foot operates. I get 32 MPG all day highway and had a best of 38MPG. I don't think the CL-S can touch those numbers. Correct me if I am wrong
02-29-2012, 04:37 PM
#71
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Ive gotten 32-33mpg on the highway in my CL, but that was after the engine build. On the 3.2, I was lucky to get 28 on the highway.
Ive anyone is curious, the 7G Accord uses wideband O2 sensors, which definitely contributes to the good gas mileage. It keeps a much tighter clamp on fueling compared to our stock setup.
Ive anyone is curious, the 7G Accord uses wideband O2 sensors, which definitely contributes to the good gas mileage. It keeps a much tighter clamp on fueling compared to our stock setup.
02-29-2012, 05:37 PM
#72
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Yeah, I have to admit, the Accord V6, while newer, looks SO awful to me, by comparison. The CL isn't winning any awards either, but, classier by far than the Accord. Also, the resale on the CL's are lower, and they seem to be less beat on by their owners. Seems like every High School kid is talking about their Accord with intake and exhaust and how they mis-shifted some gears and fried their trans or synchro's. I guess it's kind of like buying from a better demographic, for now, with the CL-S, most of these cars are owned by fairly respectful drivers (even if they do enjoy running up the RPM's every now and again).
Anyway, yep, still hoping to get a report on the one in Michigan, any Michigan dwellers, let me know if you are up to it, the guy is near Lansing. Gas and whatnot is on me.
Anyway, yep, still hoping to get a report on the one in Michigan, any Michigan dwellers, let me know if you are up to it, the guy is near Lansing. Gas and whatnot is on me.
02-29-2012, 06:06 PM
#74
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
Looks are subject, I try not to bring them up in comparisons.
Unless the comparison includes the 4G TL, in which case, the TL loses.
By a lot.
Unless the comparison includes the 4G TL, in which case, the TL loses.
By a lot.
The following users liked this post:
clpassenubye (02-29-2012)
03-01-2012, 04:19 PM
#77
I don't believe that to be true. The J30A4 is more fuel efficient than the J32A2. Plus the Accord is more aerodynamic and weighs less. Its a no brainer. I know with my Accord V6 5AT I get between 24 and 26MPG all city driving depending on how my foot operates. I get 32 MPG all day highway and had a best of 38MPG. I don't think the CL-S can touch those numbers. Correct me if I am wrong
03-01-2012, 04:22 PM
#78
I Wanna Beer