Now, I don't really know when this was originally printed, I just came across it today

.Acura CL review

 

not bad...

 

do u think these people even drive the carS???

 

 

About the only thing not to like has to be the exterior design. Not that it's ugly or weird in any way: It just appears kind of, well, unremarkable compared with a lot of the cars in this market segment.

and also a hoot to drive, where the hell do they find these people

what are they looking for 1959 cadillac eldorado tailfins?

 

i guess thats a good reveiw?

 

I think the 1997? or 1996? TL replaced the vigor...not the 1999 TL

 

True about the Vigor. It had been long gone by '99. The 99 was the first time the TL had the 3.2 engine.

dee

 

I mentioned a long time ago that the SC400 was about as close a competitor as the CL has. But, I don't think that comparison would have flown very well since the CL is half the price but offers all of the goodies. Now that would have been a tail whipping in a review article. Did no journalist see this comparison that was immediatley obvious to me? This seems much more reasonable a comparison than to the BMW. I wonder what the SC400 was ever compared with?

Although the fact that the SC series was kind of a flop doen't make me feel so good.

 

I think that sounds pretty good for Cl-S..about time!

 

JZ: Man I love the SC series. I thought the car was very classy (if accoutre'd right). I like the big coupe idea, and remember thinking you were correct way back when in your comparo of the CL and the SC. When I bought the car the almost 1.5 ft. difference in the BMW and the Acura was a big point with me. I wanted a couple with some SIZE. I am paying alot for this car (relatively) and I want my money's worth. Nothing even came close to the features/price on this car and I like the understated elegance of the Acura (I REALLY like the 3 series couple looks, but not for 42K. (that's what my neg. equity would have pushed the 37K car up to whereas I that same 5K pushed the Acura to 34K...you do the math...

On the Lexus's defense that Naka. stereo system was AWESOME!!!!!

dee

 

WTF is up with the ending and the whole Wife/Women thing???

 

Well, as niche competitors, the CL-S kind of slots somewhere between the SC300 and SC400, if you squint at a distance.

Since none of these cars in their American forms are canyon carvers, the RWD of the SC is kind of a wash in terms of performance. It does provide the feel of a RWD car, which is important to buyers willing to shell out that much, though.

(On a tangent, the JDM version of the SC was a complete bad-ass. The "Soarer" came with a 2.5 liter turbocharged engine, which enabled SC400-like output w/o the weight. It was considered to be a more luxurious version of the Supra TT.)

That's only if you focus on listed amenities, and nothing else. In that way you could say that the Mercedes C280 (previous-gen) didn't compare very well with the Accord EX, since the Accord EX is also about half the price but offers "all the goodies." Such a comparison fails to take into account the drivetrain differences, which although produces only subtle differences, costs very differently to build. To some, the subtlety is worth the premium. It fails to take into account build/materials quality. It also fails to take into account marque prestige.

It's pretty much the difference that determined why the 1998 LS400 was a sales success and the 1998 3.5RL was not. When people are affluent enough to afford the LS400/SC400/S-class/7-series, these things other than the listed amenities matter in great amounts.

Per R&T 11/96, the review of the Jaguar XK8 ($64900) was compared to the BMW 840Ci ($75300) and the Lexus SC400 ($52400).

No two-door luxury (or near-luxury) car has ever sold in good numbers. (Notable exceptions being the Ford Thunderbird and the Cadillac Eldorado. Knwoing this, are you guys at all surprised that the CL-S is built in America only for Americans?)

[ 07-22-2001: Message edited by: DtEW ]