On cars.com at Porter Honda in PA. $16,900

I know it's high, but it's also a brand new car.

 

Link:

2006 Acura TL , $16,990 - Cars.com

 

The problem is do you want a car with 2006 technology for that price or would you rather opt for a slightly more expensive car but with today's tech?

I feel like buying a nearly 10 years old car for that price, even with the low mileage is very hard to justify.

 

Like Polo said, it's a 10yr old car and that's a pretty steep price. It's clean, no doubt, but the fact is that it's 10yrs old that will never be considered a classic (imo). It's a car that was meant to be a DD.

 

 

Wow, this was barely driven. I see it also failed emissions once.

At that price point though, I'd be looking at newer cars in the same class. I guess if it was down to this TL or a new civic/corolla/etc. I'd seriously consider the TL.

 

Exactly, impossible to justify for a basic car.

 

oil turns acidic after a year so I'd be weary of buying it.

 

Driver's seat is a little rough for 10K miles

 

There are some weird things about that car, the catalytic converter was replaced twice, the brakes were changed at 4000 miles, it failed emissions. Hmmmm..... I wouldnt buy it!

 

the seats look rich and creamy

 

If I were in the market for a 3rd gen I would definitely check it out. Yes, the asking price is high, but that just an asking price.

As far as the emissions failures and converter issues- I've seen many "good" cars fail emissions for ridiculously minor issues. The converter may have been replaced for damage/failure as well.

When I was searching for mine, I pretty much knew I was going to buy it before I even looked at it. An 04 with 16k miles at $14k? Yes. I know many will disagree, but I'd take a pristine base TL with extremely low mileage over a high mileage Type-S. No, these aren't collector cars and have no historic value or cult following. But let's face it- a nice car is a nice car.

That's a nice car.

 

I'd pay half that asking price.

 

I just don't see the value in absurdly low mileage sporty sedans. I mean, my '06 has 109k and people who don't know any better think it's two or three years old if it's recently detailed. No dents, no dings, shiny paint, spotless interior, no rattles. There's not a ton of difference between a 10k and 110k miles car as far as maintenance goes. I'd still be looking at getting the timing belt done, the original tires are probably dry rotted, along with all the suspension bushings. A lot would depend on how it was stored. The low mileage cars probably feel a bit tighter than the higher mileage cars, all else being equal, but that isn't worth thousands of dollars to me.

 

Somewhat agree. If the higher mileage car was meticulously maintained (like most of us probably do here) then yes. But let's be real, the majority of people who own cars don't maintain like us motor heads. Generally speaking a low mileage car will always be a better buy. It hasn't been used as much so it'll be cleaner and less wear and tear. Not always the case but usually holds true.

 

totally agree with this ^ rubber goes bad with age & sometimes too little mileage on a car can do more harm than good if the car wasn't stored properly

especially with this car being a base model with an automatic transmission this car is a $11500ish vehicle at most, maybe if it were a 6MT/Navi it could possibly be $13500ish but even that is being a bit generous imo