This is the test we've been waiting for. I just got the March issue of Car and Driver and they have a 7 car comparison test on $35,000 Sport Sedans including the TL. I don't have the ability to scan the article (perhaps someone else can) but here are the rankings: (1) Infiniti G35 (2) BMW 325i (3) Acura TL (4) Lexus IS300 (5) Audi A4 3.0 Quattro (6) Saab 9.3 Arc (7) Jaguar X-Type 3.0. Their biggest gripe with the TL was no RWD (nothing new from them).
To sum up the TL segment they said, "The TL boasts the largest, best-furnished interior, the strongest engine, one of the slickest shifters, exemplary build quality, and generally superior esthetics. A pity its front drive layout falls short of perfection". I'd be glad to share any more specifics for those interested. FWIW.

 

To think that FWD was one of the deciding factors for me to actually get the TL over the G35!!! Oh well, I don't mind a little torque steer at all.

I just think it's funny that people cite the FWD as being the issue they wouldn't buy it but it was a deciding factor of me wanting it here in the Midwest with our crappy winters.

 

Thanks for the info.

C&D's bias for RWD once again clouds their judgment.

 

Surprised the 325i scored that well, also no all of a sudden FWD is "bad" in their opinions. Torque steer is no issue unless you go around every corner and stop light gunning it and most of us dont.

 

Yep, same old BS. And a BMW 325, no less. A 325 will not out run OR ou thandle OR out brake OR out anything a TL manual. A 330 with the sport package will outhandle it in a race track, period. It time to cancel my C/D subscrition since its plain to see that they are full of *hit anyway!

 

When one runs into the bias the C&D is showing, I find that the truth usually shows up in the objective tests, with there scoring of "driver's opinion" etc, coloring the results. Did they do any objective testing, or was this a seat-of-the-pants test.? Also, an important item, did the TL have HPT rubber or the awful Turanzas? Thanks for the heads up.

 

If anything, C/D has ALWAYS been biased in favor of Honda. For goodness sakes, the Accord won the last CD comparison test out of a 10 car group (2/03) AND (if I recall correctly), the 5 y/o 6G Accord V6 won the previous comparo test (and that was against the brand new Altima and Camry, no less)

So its hard for me to feel bad about the fact that the TL didnt score 1st place. I personally prefer the TL but, the G35 seems to get consistent accolades from mags worldwide so, its not just a C/D thing. (With Renault's financial assistance, Nissan pretty much reinvented itself successfully so far.)

As for the FWD vs RWD; the only other entry level luxo-sport sedans with FWD is the I35, 9-3 and 9-5: not exactly Honda's target rivals. The rest have RWD, some with AWD variants. RWD and/or AWD is the trend. If Honda wants to Zag while the competition Zigs, that's fine. They'll have to deal with the consequences. One of which is placing 3rd on comparison tests.

 

Maybe look at it this way...

It is the best FWD sedan available, period. When considering on-track or near-limit (9/10ths - is that the right way to say it?) performance and handling, the RWD cars edge out (and they do only edge out) the TL.

Consider what is being evaluated, consider the reasons you bought the TL, and you will always feel very good about your purchase - both objectively and subjectively!

Imo, if one was shopping for a car that had the best "near racing" specs available, they'd go for an AWD or RWD car. I think most of us bought the TL wanting the best balance of all worlds. And we got it!

Finally, being 3rd in a "shoot off" by an undeniably and likely, permanently, FWD/AWD biased (and that's putting it mildly) magazine is a tremendous accomplishment!

I, for one, am encouraged by every review I read. Even that lame article from the guy in the LA Times that praised it up one side and down the other but said it ahd no character (?????) encouraged me!

Hey, we all made the right choice!

 

Looks like you haven't read the Consumer Reports test since you missed 2 additional FWD cars at this price range The Volvo S60, and and the Lexus ES 300. Not to forget the Maxima which is also its price range. As to the G the only endearing thing about it is the engine, although close, the G is still slower. The suspension although snappy is uncomfortable and unpredictable. The fit and finish is barely above an altima and the reliability has been mediocre. Yep The G is a nice car but it is simply put to shame by the TL.

 

NOT TRUE. If you're into magazine racing, the G35 beat out the older generation TLS one time but the TLS beat it another time shortly after. So it was 1-1. Then C&D came out with their 6mt CLS vs BMW 3 series comparison article where they praised the CLS and were stunned how it lost to the BMW by only a hair. The next year, they bashed the 2004 TL when everyone was praising it. Rather than concentrating on other parts of the car, that article was 90% about the pros and cons of RWD. This is despite the fact that the CLS 6mt and the 2004 TL 6mt tested had identical engines and transmissions (including ratios). Next we get this test where once again they go FWD bashing. IMO, Edmunds runs better tests which are not as biased. There, the older TLS beat out the BMW 330 once. The 325 does not even compare to the TL. You could say it's in a class of it's own, a class right below the TL.


Also, the statement about the G35 getting all the accolades is not totally correct. Have you seen the latest Consumer's Reports 15-car comparison? If you did, you'd know that the Acura TL came out on top. What's even more surprising was the G35 came in 12th. I guess it figures since you can now rent one of those from Enterprise. The car's interior needs a major overhaul so it can atleast match that of a 2nd generation TL. The resale value is not there, the rear end design problem still remains, and the huge rebates and great financing and deals the dealers give out are the primary reasons why Nissan is able to sell the car. The car has nothing on the TL except a better launch / RWD / AWD. But the AWD will be nothing spectacular if it still comes with 260 hp.

 

What were the actual number scores on each car?

 

If you have noticed, Any long time readers will realize they have beat on almost every car for the last few months. They beat on the new vette and the new mustang as well as a few other cars.

I do agree that they seem to only like the RWD cars.

I think Honda should drop their advertising. I 'm sure they pay a pretty penny for it .

I think they have had some staffing changes.

 

What would C&D say to the Edmunds report (a recent thread) that the TL was one of the fastest cars it has ever tested on the Slalom???

If FWD is sooooooo bad then how did it out perform all those very expensive RWD works of art form Bavaria and the Black Forest???

It warms my heart to know if in my daily travels I am faced with a whole bunch of cones to weave in and out of then WE OWN the road.........for the most part..............with different tires..........

 

There's a whole contingent of people who think Honda dominates reviews because of advertising, so dropping advertising would in fact validate that assumption. (In the motorcycle world, Honda can do no wrong even when comparo facts state otherwise)

Car review magazines are 20% objective and 80% subjective, IMO. Just because the TL didn't win this particular comparo doesn't mean we should all pout and boycott C&D. I really don't think C&D is following some dark agenda against the TL, they simply seem to focus more on the handling side of these cars (i.e. RWD). Personally I like the TL's luxo leanings - if I wanted a 325, 330, G35, etc. I would have bought one. The TL's engine pretty much stomps everything in it's class, which was also a huge factor for me.

The C&D article doesn't make me regret purchasing my TL. I guess maybe because I'm a little older now (36) I don't feel the need to have my purchase validated by a magazine review.

my 2 cents

 

I agree with 6spdzoomzoom. C&D has been really harsh on even BMW lately, with relatively negative reviews of the new 5-series and a horrible review of the new X3 SUV.

As far as this comparo, their current set of editors simply has a RWD bias, and I don't think they're biased against Honda at all. I am willing to bet they'll give the TL more of a chance when they test an A-SPEC.

 

Bias or no bias, one would hope that at C&D (and any other "reviews" publication) they have appropriate segregation of duties -- meaning that their business department (advertising revenue) are kept away from their editorial and reporting staff.

Also, I disagree with their statement about the "exemplary" build quality. As many of us can attest to (rattles, anyone?), the build quality in this car is not quite exemplary.

 

Exc. for the "engine stomping" comment, I agree. All in all, well stated.

 

I agree I don't feel the need to validate my purchase. I love my car and wouldnt trade it for anything but, a GT2 or GT3!!!!!

 

I'll take the word of Consumer Reports over C&D any day.

 

Here's some other specifics about the test: all were manual transmission, the tires on the TL were Potenza RE030's, and the final scores were: G35 - 211, 325i - 208, TL - 207, IS300 - 190, A4 - 189, Saab - 174, XType - 172. Considering these figures, I would think that one's main choices would be the G, BMW, or TL with the others being also-rans. (We all know which one WE prefer!) The Tl had the best results of the group in the following categories: bhp, Lb per bhp, 0-60 time, 1/4 mile time, rolling 5-60 mph, quietness at 70mph, braking from 70ft, and front/rear interior room.

 

4 points for rwd thats BS... look at the drop-off though 17 point drop for 4 place.

It beats everything performance wise and still gets the RWD issue.

What were the skidpad results? for just the TL

 

Skidpad results in G's were: G35 - .90, TL - .89, BMW - .89, IS - .88, Jag - .86, Saab - .85, and Audi - .83. Test was done on 300ft

 

Much better with the HPT's I'm sure my Pilot sports A/S are even better.

Thanks for the data..

I still don't see how RWd would have made that much difference.

 

I really want to see those numbers now. In what areas did the G35 and the BMW beat the TL?

 

BTW I'm sure they don't have a catagory for FWD RWD. I think they are contradicting themselves.

It does everything better except skidpad by .01g's and its 3rd.

These guys are crazy. they need to let go of their bias. This is like 99.9% subjective .1% objective

 

Impressive. I guess now a days you have to read into the detailed results to make your own decision about cars since the editors are too biased against FWD even though the TL did better than average among it's RWD counterparts.

 

I want to make sure I have this right.

1. It beat all the cars in performance except the skidpad and that was a .01g difference.
2. "Flawless Build Quality"

This is just mind boggling

 

It didn't beat the average... It just beat them all!!!

 

What were the interior scores on the cars?

 

I think someone needs to do a RWD intervention over at C&D!!! Maybe shock treatments.

 

The TL pulls .89?! Which magazine had it pulling a .81? I presume that is on the summer tires.

 

Car and Driver. they had the EL42 on the original test

 

Anyone else noticed that C&D who in the past has chosen the A4 quattro 3.0 over even the 330i got mid pack results, that is significant!

If anything, we should be proud that we bettered the A4 that is also well liked!

 

who really cares? everyone's opinion about what car is the best will be different. go to an infiniti forum and they'll say finally we get recognition. go to a bimmer and they'll question how a japanese car could beat a german. if you base your car buying on a magazine performance ranking then that's stupid.

 

Consumer Reports is great for getting a feel for what types of things are out there, what to look for in a product. Where they tend to fail IMO is that they give _way_ too much weight to whether products protect idiots from themselves. I'd like to know, for example, which toaster is better assuming I _don't_ drop in the tub with me.

 

consumer reports looks at the overall value, not performance.

 

I agree that CR is more objective. I am a long time reader of CD and I respect their opinion from a performance standpoint. Yes, adam209 is correct who care and if you go to any of the other cars web sites they will have their own comments. I'm just confused how a car magazine can test a car and one car wins basically everything that they test and it come in 3rd...

 

2004 Acura TL, THE BEST PERFORMANCE FOR THE BUCK PERIOD!!

The car rag mag's are just all wet when it comes to there rating systems. CR does it the right way.

Love my 04 6 speed with Nav !

 

CD rates on performance, hence the name. If you want performance, go for the G. It does perform and handle much better than the TL, though the ride is much more harsh. If luxury and comfort matter more than performance go with the TL. I traded my G35 6 speed for a TL, so trust me, I know...

 

Would someone with a scanner please post the C&D article so we can all see the details? Thank you for doing this.