Pretty good review.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=969048871196

 

Thanks. Interesting comments about manual vs. automatic too.

 

I completely disagree with the writer's comments about transmissions. Aside from the fact that the manual has consistently recorded quicker times than the automatic (no surprise there), the fun factor is never mentioned. There are those among us, myself for sure, who wouldn't give a rat's whiskers if the automatic was the manual's equal in performance.. we just LOVE to row the gears. I do believe our Canadian writer friend missed this one entirely.

 

The manual is definitely faster than the manual, but if you read closely he states that it doesn't "feel" any faster which just shows that the car is so quiet and refined, that the additional thrust is not apparent. I own a manual and drove the auto and Ipersonally felt it, but as manual tranny owners know the engine is so subdued (specially with a DVD blasting) that if your not careful, the only indication that its time to shift may be the rev limiter!

 

Regarding the manual being faster then the automatic. I would agree, however, from various reviews I've read, they only clock the manual at being less then a second quicker then the automatic from 0-60.

 

Decent review. I did not know the automatic had 2 piston calipers!

 

I guess this journalist did not bother to fact check the track record of Honda automatic transmissions. Smooth as they may be, there were a myriad of issues with previous versions (even some new issues with the 2004 tranny as well).

I for one would not have purchased the car if it had not been for the manual transmission. I don't do automatics!!!

For the poster who mentioned that the difference in tranny's accounted for a second in time savings to 60...a second is an eternity (and is equivalent to a car length or more for those racing types).

The manual is most definitely quicker, regardless of whether this great white northern neighbor journalist could 'feel' it.

 

I also agree with this statement. However, the reviewer did not have a manual TL next to it to gauge this slight difference. Therefore a less then 1 second difference, and I say LESS, not a second, but less than a second, is not as noticeable when only driving by yourself as opposed to racing away at a light with someone next to you. All I'm trying to say, is that the automatic is still plenty fast, and for people like me, who don't care about racing so much as having the ability to get up and go if I need to (example: when passing) it's plenty quick.

 

Having driven a 5at for 4 months and trading in for a 6mt I can definitely feel that the 6mt is faster. One of the reasons that I looked at the new TL is because of the 6mt.

This journalist stated that the TL has "LED turn signals". The TL does not have "LED turn signals".

 

I'm sure he meant LED side markers

 

Poorly written review. How many paragraphs was that?

 

Having had a 6mt for five months then traded for an 5AT because the wife couldn't get used to the manual, I have the opposite opinion to 6MTv6. While we all know the numbers in that the 6sp is putting more horsepower to the wheels and is a bit faster in the 1/4 mile, the 5AT feels stronger in the seat of the pants. This is due to the manner the transmission shifts especially when left in auto mode. While I had no trouble with the 6MT, I have to admit that the clutch is stiff and quick to engage and the transmission, while smooth, is also stiff to shift. Neither the clutch nor shifting can compare to the ease of the Honda Civic 5SP. I liked the manual but don't miss the inordinate amount of brake dust from the Brembos and on balance would choose the auto if I had it all to do over again.

I think the reviewer was referring to the tail lights when he mentioned LED. They are in fact LED

 

wayyyyyyy 2 many... lmao