I have looked for a new project car to create a custom widebody kit for. Beyond the audacity of attempting a custom widebody kit, are CL’s really worth purchasing? All of the juicy information I’ve seen about it is from 2003 or 2004. I’ve seen a number of CL-S models with well over 200k miles for sale, but I’m not sure if perhaps they have better transmissions after 20 years or if they’re still a dumpster fire acura never extinguished. I absolutely hate maintenance, so replacing a whole transmission with another possibly faulty tranny isn’t on my agenda when I’m buying a car.

edit: no, I’m not going to buy a CL-S with more than 140k miles on it.

 

Perhaps you answered your own question right there?

 

If the CL’s still have shit transmissions, yes. But do they? Or has Honda/Acura fixed the issue?

 

That question can be answered three ways:

1. The CL-S was available with a 6-Speed manual, that transmission is quite robust but unfortunately unmolested 6MT models are quite rare.
2. The 5-Speed automatic was problematic; the transmission went through several iterations, and was eventually refined to the point where it could be reasonably reliable.
3. Unfortunately the most refined H5 transmission which will bolt into your car is the BAYA unit from 2006 and 2007 Honda Accord V6 models (nicknamed the AV6); if you want an automatic, then either look for a CL which already has the AV6 in it, or budget for one transmission replacement.

The above said, @ProfessorFunk's advice is the best, if you are looking to buy a car nearing 20 years old and you hate maintenance, then by definition, you are not looking to buy this, or any other car for that matter, of that vintage.

 

Well said, that clears a lot of things up. Guess I’m gonna buy another TL-S

 

Which Type-S are you looking at; a 2G or a 3G?

 

My transmission required a total rebuild in 2017. With only 71,000 miles. Cost me $2300. I've kind of hated the car ever since.

 

Why have you hated it; just the cost of keeping a great car running. Depending on what was done during the rebuild (or hopefully the remanufacture) process, there is a good chance you'll not need another transmission for the life of the car.

 

Actually, other than the transmission blowing up, the car has been totally problem free. I have only had to fix wear items like brakes and the timing belt.

I also have a 2019 Accord Sport 2.0, so compared to that car, my 2001 CL feels slow, primitive, cramped, and gets terrible gas mileage.

I bought my CL with 62,000 miles from an old lady who meticulously maintained the vehicle at the dealership and barely ever drove it. I thought I had a score when the transmission blew up with very few miles on the car. I was really bitter after that. The guy who rebuilt the tranny told me all about the chronic transmission issues with this car, and said that the modern rebuild kits for that transmission correct the problem and the tranny should last many years.

 

You have the right idea, Horsehoez...

I'd rather see more clean older cars vs. new cars!

 

Interesting, I'm surprised you feel the 2019 Accord is faster; I drove one recently and it was roughly on par with my 3G TL 6MT from an acceleration perspective. Granted I've never driven a CL, automatic or manual, but I always thought they'd be pretty quick as well.

 

I have a CL-S. About 260hp, same as the Accord. But the power is very different, as the Accord has a turbo 4 and the CL-S is a naturally aspirated 6. My Accord is a 6MT while the CL is of course Automatic. The acceleration is not close. Accord does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. The CL did it in 6.8 when it was new. The Accord feels much faster, although the CL's engine makes really beautiful noises and feels strong as well.

 

It depends on what you want.... The CL-S will feel smoother, quieter and more instantaneous whereas the Accord 2.0T will be better in a straight line.

I could be wtong, but our RDX turbo feels faster in a straight line, but the Accord V6 or my 2008 TL was smoother and more luxurious. It's hard to explain if you haven't experienced it! Cool subject to discuss# really into this thread!

 

Ahhh, you didn't specify the transmissions. The Accord 6MT I drove had roughly the same acceleration as my TL 6MT, but different power in different RPM ranges. Overall I would say my TL is a bit faster. As for the Accord doing 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, hmmm, no, not the one I drove; where did you see that number?

 

it's hard to believe a car designed 15 years ago is still so relevant!!! That is awesome!!!

 

The 5.5 is for the 2.0t. You may have driven the 1.5t. The 5.5 number is in all the publications such as Car and Driver, and it seems right on by my reckoning.

 

No, I drove a 2.0t. I checked, the 5.5 zero to sixty time you quoted of for the cars with the 10-Speed Automatic, I rather doubt the 6MT is anywhere near that quick.