Hello

Can anyone point me to a picture of what the dash on an '04 TL looks like (lit up) without the Navi.

It seems that every place I go for pics show the interior with Navi.

I'm just wondering if the TL's without Navi look as good.

Thanks

 

In my opinion, the dash looks terrible without the nav. I was at the dealership this morning taking care of a service issue (notching feeling while shifting), and while I was there I drove a 6MT non-navi model. I glanced over at the dash and thought to myself, 'thank got I didn't get this car'. In my opinion, it makes the car look really lame. Personally, I think they could have done a lot more to the console to help it 'flow' better. Then again, perhaps they did it on perpose to influence people to get the NAV. heh.

If I were you, I'd head down to the dealership and check them out in person. If they are anything like the dealerships in 99% of them are non-navi's.

 

I too am biased, but cblackburn is right that Acura does not deserve the interior accolades it is receiving when you look at the non-NAVI model.

 

My advice would be to go to your nearest dealership and check the non-navi and navi (if they have one in stock) out yourself.

As for the non-navi version, I think it's fine. Hell, the display looks just as good, if not better, than any other car out there that doesn't have a navi unit installed. If it's appearance only you're going for, then why spend the extra money on the navi?

I would agree, though, that the navi TL looks a bit better than the non-navi TL.

 

I have a non-Navi. The Navi display looks a bit better, IMO, but the non-Navi interior is pretty good too.

 

I bought the NAVI as well after test driving a non-NAV and seeing it for myself. I couldn't buy the TL with non-NAV based on how it looked. Oh yeah, and the features it adds were cool too.

So, to me the purchase of the NAV was well worth it both for aesthetic purposes as well as features. But the aestethic opinions on it are definitely a personal opinion. You'll get as many people on either side of the fence when you ask about it. Definitely check it out for yourself, in person, and make your choice from there.

Good luck.

 

I have the Navi too, but I think people are over-reacting to the non-navi display. Its not that bad. Its impossible to compare the two, and the rest of the interior is still gorgeous.

 

I have non-Navi too and while "okay" it's not nearly as nice looking as the navi setup, especially the top display.

Edmunds has some pics of a non-Navi interior

 

A very nice set of high res pictures, including the non-navi interior is here

http://www.speedycars.net/wallpaper/acura_tl.html

 

I bought non-navi....I don't need the navi for maps or directions much, but all of the features the navi brings with it seem to make it worth the $2K.

 

I also agree that the Nav looks better, but bought the non for a few reasons:

+ don't have much use for the Nav features, but did like the XM setup
+ Nav setups have typically returned only 25% on resale (from what I have read)
+ I bought the 6MT and felt it to be more of a sport setup, whereas I may have sprung for it in the AT (my thinking, only)

IMO, I may have paid $1200 for it, but not $2k.

J

 

I have a non-nav, but there's no question in my mind that the nav display is nicer. Problem is that it would have cost me an extra $2500, and I don't know that it's worth that much for me. If $$ isn't an object, I'd get the nav unit.

 

Why would you say that it's impossible to compare the two? Sit in both of them and decide for yourself.

I admit its impossible to reach your decision by asking for other people's opinions on something as subjective as which one looks better. We're all going to have different opinions on it and what the differences we see are worth to us.

It's the same as asking which color exterior or interior is best or which color combo is best. There is no "right" answer other than the one you make for yourself.

 

IMO the non nav doesn't look too bad..i just don't think its worth the extra 2500...so what i did is i bought the garmin streetpilot 2610 for 850 bucks from best buy....it works just as good...the only difference is it's not integrated in the car....plus, i can use it in my truck too if i don't feel like driving my car(which is very rare ) but then again like what soljc said...if $$ is not an issue then by all means go for the nav, w/ the a spec package, and then slap on some 19s on it, then get a cai and then the CHip and then..and then...and then....and then....

 

Definately for from the only difference...it doesn't give you all of the voice commands that the nav in the car does....it does not give you a nice, large screen...it is an extra item to attach to the dash/windshield....I think that if you need to get directions somwhere, then the $2K is a bit much, but if you are going to exploit all the other functions, then get the navi. BTW, I think $850 is too much to just get directions places...I think the $30 Thomas guide does just fine

 

What exactly does the bottom half of the non-navi screen display? I'm curious cause this might make an interesting mod.

 

Its not than the non navi looks bad its just that the dash was designed with the system in it. The efforts to cover up something that is essentially missing were not entirely successful.

 

I read recently in autoweek that the garmin doesnt give accurate directions a good percentage of the time. you can think whatever you want but the nav in the acura is better than any add on gizmo you can name. the non nav dash looks unfinished to me but if you dont want the voice command or nav then hey thats completely fine. I am sure that the driving makes the tl what it is and not any other single feature aside from value.