iNteGraz92

hd, are you just mad cuz u don't have HIDs? so you resort to looking for anything negative about them? and why the switch in subjects?

harddrivin1le

The various links speak for themselves.

HIDs have many tradeoffs, not the least of which is cost.

I'm sure you haven't read any of the links and won't...That way you can continue to tell everyone that HIDs automatically mean "better."

MR-REV-HI

There is a fact about HID's that no one has touched on. This is the fact that the whiter light produced from HID's reflects off road markings, signs, etc much better than the amber light produced by halogens. Also, aside from what the article says, I can tell that my HID's produce a much more intense light on the road. Meaning, when I drive along side a halogen light equipt car, I can see my lights, in a sense, overpowering his light on the road. It's as if a halogen equipt car could drive without it's lights on when HID's are along side, and see just as well. However, that is just my opinion.

adam209

are you guys just b!tching to get a high post count? this sh!t with harddrivin is getting a little redundant. all that ever happens is he quotes a few people, argues about how they're right, how the TL sucks, and how fast his piece of sh!t camaro is.

harddrivin1le

HIDs don't show colors as well as halogens...And they don't necessarily illuminate distant objects any better, either.

There are trade-offs with them, cost being perhaps the most significant one.

Maybe the TL has great HIDs...

But just because a car has HIDs doesn't NECESSARILY mean that it provides "better" all around lighting than every halogen equipped car. On the other hand, HIDs "look" cooler and that's REALLY what a lot of this is all about.

harddrivin1le

NOWHERE have I stated that the TL "sucks."

It's a very nice car; Acura is simply amiss in failing to offer the A-spec package as a reasonably priced, factory/RPO item.

I'd have bought one if they did.

Why is the Camaro a "piece of sh!t?" I've owned the car for 5.5 years and 73K miles. There were a few minor issues during the first year (leaky pinion seal, an odometer that reset to zero in cold weather and a bad catalytic converter). The dealership happily fixed those problems under warranty. The car has been very reliable as a whole and the car flat out HAULS - on the straights AND in the corners and it's got excellent brakes, too.

Name one production car that Acura or Honda has ever built that can touch an LS1/1LE Z28 in terms of bang for the buck. The car provided NSX levels of performance @ 4 cylinder Accord EX prices while acheiving 19 city/28 highway per the EPA. And it produced more peak drive wheel HP per EPA rated MPG than any car Honda or Acura has ever produced.:p

Sure the interior is cheap and panel fit isn't perfect; I replaced the driver's seat with a new Recaro the first week I bought the car. I can live with those shortcomings in a car that offers that kind of performance for the dollar.

adam209

you're right. if i wanted a fast piece of sh!t, i could buy a camaro. very good.

harddrivin1le

But why can't Acura/Honda produce a vehicle that offers more peak drive wheel HP/MPG than that "piece of sh!t" that came out way back in 1998 and uses just one cam, pushrods and 2 valves per cylinder?

adam209

because they use quality materials to produce quality products???? i think so

harddrivin1le

So you're saying that "quality materials" and the resulting "quality products" result in substandard drive wheel HP per MPG ratios???? LOL

The Z28 ragtops had a curb weight of 3,600 pounds, produced in excess of 310 rear wheel HP (in some cases and bone stock) and got 19 city/28 highway per the EPA.

That sounds like good engineering to me.

See, GM knows that E = (MV^2)/2 and that high revving engines with high internal component speeds (V) burn a disproportionately large amount of fuel (e.g. revving @ ~ 4,000 RPM @ 80 MPH on the highway).

But torqueless wonders have no option; they MUST REV to produce the power required to move the car down the road @ any given speed.

So an engine like the LS1 has something called T-O-R-Q-U-E, which I realize is a foreign concept to you. That means the engine can produce heavy power @ low rpms (and low internal engine part speeds) and therefore doesn't have to rev like a nitro burning chainsaw to make the car go down the road.

Get it?

adam209

no dipsh!t. honda is more concerned with cars that will last and maintain themselves rather than a cheap, albeit sometimes fast, piece of sh!t

adam209

believe it or not, most people aren't that concerned about speed. i'd rather have a nice car that can go fast rather than a faster piece of sh!t that falls apart on me.

harddrivin1le

My Gen IV Z28 hasn't "fallen apart on me."

In fact, it's tight as a drum.:wow:

"Hi tech," "highly efficient" engines (like the type hyped by Acura) SHOULD be able to produce very impressive POWER/MPG ratios...At least one might be inititally inclined to assume that.

The fact of the matter is quite different. By many measures, they pale in comparison to simple pushrod/overhead valve/ 2 valve per cylinder V8s - an architecture which was popularized by Oldsmobile 4 years after the ending of Word War II.:wow:

The Z06 'Vette is heavier than the S2000 and its 5.7 liter V8 engine produces 140 more HP (and ~ 2.5 TIMES the torque). Despite that, it's more fuel efficient than the S2000's 2.0/2.2 liter inline 4.

Skeedatl

Give it up Adam, he's a mullethead who is just pissed 'cause Acura doesn't accept his food stamps.

The Slomero was cancelled for a reason. It was a flaming sack of crap. You know it, I know it, mullethead knows it, and even CHEVY knew it.

But you have to feel bad for a guy like that. He probably works really hard at Sonic and a Slomero is all he can afford so like more hicks he had to bad on everything else, no matter how superior it is.

Skeedatl

Mullethead...if the Slomero is so Mulletrific, why did GM cancel it?

Of course there will be a big Mulletlogic excuse for this one...no doubt full of lies and bull-S like everything else he posts.

adam209

no i will give him the benefit of the doubt. chevy did produce a sick ass car with the camaro...in the 60's. i'm not going to sit here and call him mullet-head because arguing with ignorants gets you nowhere fast (kind of like how his camaro gets him nowhere because chevy doesn't use quality materials therefore making fequent trips to the mechanics). he can have fun in his crappy little chevy and inferior honda while i'll still have more fun in my totaled TL.

Skeedatl

I agree.

harddrivin1le

An LS1 Camaro would DESTROY any RPO Camaro from the 60s with the POSSIBLE exception of the ZL1 (of which a whole 67 were built because the engine option alone costs more than the entire base car).

See how much "fun" you have in your TL when some kid driving a used, ~ $8.5K, 1998 Z28 blows by you while your foot is glued to the floorboards.

mspence3

Yes but the the rest of us can't live with such short comings. Many of us would never make that trade off (Power for cheap interior and worse than average reliability). Espousing the virtues of that car on this forum is a waste of time.

I did not get involved in this thread early on because I had also read C/R and new what they thought. But somewhere I smelled a rat. I think that was mostly the attitude of your responses on this and other threads.

You earlier responded to one of my posts with the satatment "I never said the TL sucked". Well, I never said that you did. I did accuse you however, of attempting to humble the members on this forum by insidiously whittling away at the pride that they have in their TL.

In addition, I accused you knowing about the other references that I posted and purposely neglecting them because they actually found merit in HID's which was contrary to your goals. I knew that they did not refute your references but I wanted everyone to actually see that there was more to it. C/R mentions the other references but that was still not the most complete picture(especially knowing that they hate the things). When faced with these challenges you usually respond viscerally by just reposting one of your references and then maybe dancing around the subject when I think you understood my point.

As my last post on this thread I will say this.
There are trade offs to buying your Accord. I had one so I know. It is not as beautiful as the TL, inside or out. It is not as fast or luxurious as the TL. It does not have heated mirrors, or those fake fogs that you so hate, or HID's ( which are great). It does not handle as well and I think there is more to it than "just tires". It is not worth as much money ( even if only because it didn't cost as much) and it has a shorter warranty.

Much of that is subjective but I think you agree and that's where the real issue is. Well, that and the fact that you have to bring all these TL owners down from their lofty perches.

UminChu

Who knows, dude. Here's a question more relevant to this thread that you yourself started. Maybe you can help me wth this (you being so much smarter than myself and everyone else here and all). Why did you you initiate a blatant troll thread, argue it ad nauseum, manipulate it into a whole 'nother troll thread, argue that ad nauseum, come back to the original topic, argue it AGAIN ad nauseum, all the while repeating the same monotonous mantra again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again (notice a pattern developing?) and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, until even those who had favored you with enormous patience have recognized the futility, gotten sick of it, given up on you, and tuned you out.

Want to see your tired mantra? "HID's suck ... I am so smart ... you are all so dumb ... you guys just don't get it ... look! here's a website ... here it is again ... see the website? ... here it is again ... here it is again ... here it is again ... too bad none of you are as smart as me ... here it is again ... both my cars are better than yours ... I am so smart ... you guys got ripped off ... not me, 'cause I'm too smart ... here's that website again ... blah blah blah, yada yada yada ..."

How many forums do you play this silly game at? Do you do this just to see how long they'll keep biting, while secretly sitting back and laughing, or what? Come on, let it go already.

harddrivin1le

I'm betting that the real world differences in overall handling between the Accord (when fitted with the ~ $450 worth of 225/55-16 Dunlop SP5000s that are presently sitting my garage) and a TL auto (which has smaller anti-roll bars than the 6 speed TL) will be quite small. And I'll bet the Accord will still have the edge in overall ride quality. (The Accord is also 191 pounds lighter than its TL counterpart, so both its engine and its chassis have less mass to cope with). Additionally, the Accord gets better mileage than its TL counterpart and does so with 87 octane fuel.

The TL's suspension tuning isn't "right." CAR AND DRIVER made that fact abundantly clear. It's clearly under-damped and (possibly) over-sprung. Acura knows that, which is one reason why they offer the A-spec as a dealer installed option. (The other is more profit.)

poohlikeshunny

I think at the rate this is going, if ANYBODY wants to be a know it all and prove everyone wrong, then do the research yourself. And I don't mean going onto the internet to read other people's articles. I mean hey, this Daniel Stern is a compromised individual in terms of his "objective views" because he promotes the proficiency and elevation to the pinnacle of his personal gain. So if you want to get technical, you must not include this report as a valid source. The other ad perhaps. It seems more of an overall review than a closed view. I am not saying anyone is wrong or right, all I am saying is that before we start chewing each other's heads off, we should remember that we all have our OWN brains. Perhaps it is an ideal time (to those who deem the upkeep of their pride above all else) to USE that brain and go and research the facts. I was a laboratory technician or an Optical company for years, so I was FORCED to study light and optics to keep my job. I can tell you now, so far, everyone is right, but everyone is also blind to the WHOLE truth. There is much more to research and I would explain everything I know except for the fact that I think certain individuals might assume it is a personal attack towards their character and/or integrity. So I will keep my information to myself. If someone has new facts to share here, why not share them instead of forcing them upon everyone else? We don't need any Jehovah's Witnesses here. Spread the knowledge, not the hate. Bottom line is: Think for yourself.

harddrivin1le

The bottom line is that HID lighting is not magic and it does not necessarily equate to "better" lighting when all things are considered....You probably already know that.

But many people like to imply that halogens suck SOLEY because THEIR car has magic lights (HID).

A good halogen system remains the most cost effective means in which to achieve "good lighting."

poohlikeshunny

I'll have to agree there. Most people assume that HID is a guaranteed better light source because they have them. But by the same token, there are many aspects when considering the effects of light whether they be peripheral, linear, flood, beam, projected....etc. So depending on where you live, what you need it for, how much dirving at night you do...etc...it changes your opinion. A person who has bright sunny days all year long will appreciate their HID's more because they light output is greater, however, someone in a really wet and rainy climate might not agree due to the constant displacement of light and their photons (packets of light energy that compose the human idealistic concept of "light") are always dispersing from raindrop to raindrop...so glare is much more apparent to oncoming traffic, and light is actually decreased for the driver. In a rainy situation, or a foggy situation, light is better when geared to yellow because of it's relation to the prismatic effect of what happens when light has to bounce within a raindrop (or a thousand raindrops) before it reaches the ground. So when it comes down to it, you really do have to seriously consider your climate and whether or not they are the most suitable. I can understand most people thinking HID's are brighter in the rain, but it only seems so because the light is reflecting off of so much water that it lights everything in between and then some, but even though the light has reached the ground, it lost most of it's kinetic energy fighting its way through rain. So in the end, you see more glare off the water than anything else. Also by the same token, in dry climate, HID tends to be more efficient due to the fact that nothing is really blocking its way other than air molecules, which is a better medium for light to pass through anyway. So on a dry road at night, the light output is the same as in the rain, but the "usable light" is on a greater scale in dry weather. With all these lighting options out there, it really is necessary to consider your needs before deciding that HID is the brightest for you. But then again, I encourage everyone to think for themselves...and if they really wanna know the truth, crack into a physics book and you'll find everything you need. I spent 8 years buried in nothing but science books...and lemme tell you...don't always trust what you read online. It's always healthier to do the research and make sure you know the facts for what they are. FACTS. Plus...it's a good workout for your brain... To everyone out there, as far as I am concerned, this thread is over. And there is so much information to be retrieved from cyberspace, the key is discovering for yourself what is truth and what is capitalistic promotion (god knows enough pop up ads are out there trying to convince you of a whole SLEW of things!) Happy learning!

Aya

PS: Concerning the cost efficiency...I agree. It is the most cost effective because halogens are so much cheaper overall...even if you have to replace them more often. That and it does provide "good" lighting (by good, I mean adequate...whether it be more or less adequate than normal...it's all dependent on the car at that point). But it doesn't always necessarily have to mean HIDs are the bane of headlight existence.

harddrivin1le

Norse396

I remember when they made the switch from yellow lights to halogen, but I doubt people got that bent out of shape about it back then.

It was just a nice change, the change to HID is nice as well, in my mind they are better than halogen, but like cow farts I don't need a scientific analisys on it.

harddrivin1le

But halogen lights didn't typically add ~ $700 to the MSRP of the vehicle...

And halogen represented a solid, all-around gain in lighting over the standard incandescent bulb...:wow:

Norse396

Let me try this another way, the cars with HID are typically more expensive for many other reasons than head-lights. If HID adds 700 to the price of my car, such is life. I feel there are many other things I can worry about than my head-lights which I think are just Jim Dandy.

If you're the type of person that has to prove to yourself why what you chose is better or more cost effective than I think you made your point, to yourself that is.

The rest of us at this point feel it's a dead issue, $700.00 doesn't make me blink (or most TL buyers) when buying a car, if it did I'd have bought an Accord or TSX.

harddrivin1le

$700 "doesn't make you blink?"

Send me a certified bank check for $700 then.

And since money isn't an issue for you, sell your Tuxedo-adorned Accord and buy an M5.

Norse396

Yes $700.00 by itself would make me blink, $700.00 in the cost of a $35,000 car doesn't make me say no to buying the car, there is a difference.

Since I'd be getting nothing for it, no thanks, send me some brand new HID's and we can talk....

Where did I state money wasn't an issue? Is reading comprehension something you ignored in school? I said "$700.00 doesn't make me blink (or most TL buyers) when buying a car", this doesn't mean I'm wealthy, it means that if I want that car bad enough, I'm not going to cry because the HID's brought the cost up by $700.00. If every dollar is something you cry over and investigate then by all means stay away from the TL and buy something within your means that won't make you look into every nut and bolt for a reason to dislike the car to the point where you'll look up head-lights and complain about them like a kid whos Tonka toy was run over.

adam209

why won't this thread just die!?

Skeedatl

Because people keep feeding mullethead.

adam209

i think he's doing this so he can get his post counts up. he has to be. nobody can be this stupid.

Norse396

I take my share of the blame for thinking he would read whats posted, accept that people don't agree and be done with it.
What was I thinking?

harddrivin1le

With the exception of this post, don't expect me to acknowledge crap like this...

People can't accept fact based reality and resort to personal attacks if such reality conflicts with their own, BIASED, factually incorrect "opinions"...

Whatever

adam209

kind of how you think that the TL isn't that great a car and the accord is just as good?

harddrivin1le

The Accord is more car for the money.

The TL is more PROFIT per car for Honda...

adam209

you've never driven one then.

Skeedatl

Give it up, 1LE is a lying troll. Put him on ignore and move on.

harddrivin1le

:o

You're right...I drove TWO (auto and 6 speed).

The automatic felt like a V6 Accord with more tire, stiffer springs and the same shocks...The 6 speed had less body roll...It seemed SLOOOOOOOOOOOooooooowwwwwwwww compared to my Z28 6 speed....