I'm a one day old owner of a 2011 tech FWD and having a little buyers remorse. My last car was an 08 type S which was the best TL you could buy, this time I didn't have as many options and I'm wondering if I'm really missing anything out of not getting an AWD model. I can already sense that the 2011 FWD is a much softer drive than the 08 type S. The engine isn't as mean when you floor it and it seems a bit slower. One positive that I've noticed is that the handling is a lot better and sticks to the road more on turns.

 

even tho i only have a FWD i think if you can afford a AWD then do so.. but it is a difference you can definitely feel

 

The FWD TL's handling is still better than many other competitors, despite its lack of AWD.

I have owned both the SHAWD and now the Base model. I won't say there's a "huge" difference, but the SHAWD:
-is louder/sportier
-stiffer, worse bump absorbtion
-can handle turns faster ("pushes" through turns)
-feels more neutral when turning
-little to no torque steer
-feels heavier when driving
-feels slower on a roll
-more supportive seats, larger rims, contrast stitching
-significantly worse gas mileage (SHAWDs 14.5avg vs Base 18mpg avg)
-slightly less front and rear legroom towards the center of the car
-larger middle hump in rear seat
-slightly smaller trunk

I do miss SHAWD, but it was a more expensive car, both in terms of initial cost and long term maintenance (larger tires, rear differential fluid, larger engine, worse gas mileage), which i was simply not ready for.

Will I get back into a SHAWD car? probably, but later on. I think this entire generation of TL, both the 4 and 4.5g are compromises. It has already been hinted by acura that this is one of their cars that are coming out during their "transition" stage. They want the TL to compete with the premium midsize class, but the RL already firmly fits that spot. The 5GTL should fully bring the TL into the midsize luxury class of cars, the 3GTSX should have more engine and drivetrain choices, and the RL should be nipping at the heels of the premium fullsize category (lexus LS, S class, 7 series).

Since you already bought it, it would be pointless to trade so early and take such a large loss. You can wait it out and see what the next gen of TL brings. I do think that for their next gen, acura wants to move the TSX into the 3GTL's old spot, and the 5GTL will fill in the current RL's spot.

Ok i strayed a bit off topic, but i hope the first part of my post helped.

 

14.5 MPG? I do mostly local city driving with the occasional highway driving and average 19.5. It's not like I drive like an old lady either, far from it. I test drove both before buying, I liked the AWD better.

 

YOWSAH! 14.5mpg ....ewww, with my driving habits, fast, I live in the city and get much better mpg than that. Add on top of that my commute is 18 miles one way and then I'm in Atlanta (148 miles away from Augusta) 2-4 times a month. Anythime you trade sports for luxury you trade of the softer ride for a stiffer firmer one. That was the case with the Type-S vs Premium 3.2CL with older car. True it's heavier, AWD...if the TL base had the 305 hp engine in it without this system then you'd have some serious under steer. Slower in a roll....not sure about that one, Didn't own the Base model, but test drove it extensively, a 3G Type-S, and a V-6 TSX over a period of hmmm 6 months before I made the choice on the AWD.

The HUGE difference in my estimation is performance that's why there are theses two variants...the gap gets even bigger with the manual tranny. Since I've had mine I've driven Camaros, Mustangs, Bimmers and few other vehicles and the the handling, ride, and feel of the AWD system is a of world difference, especially in the rain in snow.

 

i went from a type s to a shawd, and i can say that if i was talking to you before you bought your tl, i would have told you that you wouldnt be happy with the standard tl and to get the awd since you were comming from the type s....

 

i havent had a 4G in FWD, but i am sure that most of the other comments reign true... the major differences are in the dynamics of the car, and the way it drives.

looks, features, etc... are all very similar (Aside from the 18" wheels/different front reflectors)

 

yup 14.5mpg

I live in a suburb in Los Angeles, have a heavy foot, and drive anywhere about 85-90% city (you know, LA suburb traffic with every other block having either a red light or stop sign or bad drivers), even my 10-15% "hwy/freeway" is slow moving bumper to bumper traffic.

My point to op was that there was a clear difference between the Base and SHAWD models I had. I'd say the difference is a solid 3mpg, since my base mpg reader thing said 17.5 mpg for the longest time, then i slowly edged it to 18+ after a few more months.

 

Averaging 22mpg on my SH-AWD 40% city / 60% highway; highest I've hit mpg wise is 27-28 miles to the gallon (100% highway).

 

I owned a Type-S and test drove the FWD when it first came out and know I coudl never do the FWD, I then got a AWD, and loved it. The AWD handling was better than the Type-S in so many ways, form better overall handling to a more refined controlled ride. The AWD is not really faster than the FWD becasue of the extra weight and power train loss of the AWD, but the fun factor is much better. That being said I drive an M37S now that is way softer than the AWD was and I woudl put closer to the TL FWD in terms of ride. That being said you get used to it after a while, I did pump up the tire pressure to hlp give back some of the crispness of the steering, you can also look at maybe swapping out the wheels and tires to help a little.

 

I have to agree here there is quite a bit of difernce in the ride and handling between the 2 models. The AWD feels like the car is "sticking" to the road while I felt the FWD floated a bit, particularly around a turn...the AWD body will stay flat. It also has a much tighter feel when driving. If you are in an area that has any amount of of snow or even rain I found the AWD to be a great benefit

 

Keith,

What made you trade in your SHAWD for the M?

 

2 things; the beak and the color. I love a silver car and Acura has wandered far from anything "silver". Palladium Metallic looked like a muted beige most of the time. The beak also never grew on me that much. The new Forged Silver is nice, although it does have a blue hue in some light and is more a steel grey. What I relaly liked (never thought I would until I saw it in person this weekend) is the new Dark Grey, with the chrome highlights, really looks sweet. I do wish the TL had Chrome handles on the dark colors, the gf's RDX is dark grey and the TSX has them and it really makes the car look a step up. I love my M37S (other than the crappy BT and electronics), but yearn to get back into the TL AWD.

 

Gotta agree with you, that new Dark Grey color looks great on the TL.

 

Agreed.

IMHO: 2012 TL looks best with Graphite Luster Metallic. Palladium Metallic on the 09-11 TL (blends in best with the beak).

 

Here is the thing, if you have never driven the SH-AWD, and only the FWD, you will never know what you are missing. It's like back in the day when I tried the I4 Accord (1998), and then the V6. I could not believe they were even the same vehicle. If you don't want to pay for it don't even tempt yourself.

The fact is, the SH-AWD to me is so worth the extra money along with the great tech package.

When you get older like myself and can afford it you buy the nicer vehicle if you like cars. I have a buddy who is happy with a Hyundi Elantra, and could not care less what car they buy as it is just a car to them.

 

For my wife and I it was a matter of having AWD because we live in the Northeast. The first TL we drove was a 2009 loaded w/Tech Package the 19" Diamond Cut wheels and the full body kit. Car drove like a dream but the dealer was not willing to deal on the price.
The 2nd TL we drove was the 2010 TL SH-AWD and it was just what we were looking for and it was a better deal than the 2009.
Witha all that being said, it really depends on what part of the counrty you live in. If you don't have to worry about snow then I would definitely get the FWD and it is much more nimble in the corner and a better drive in general without the added weight. If your in a part of the counrty that gets snow then you would want the AWD.

 

since you had the S I cant believe you didnt test drive a SH-AWD

handling handling handling - thats the diff

only way to really see for yourself is to drive one

 

I've had my FWD TL Tech for 2 months and have avg 17 mpg on 75/25 city/hwy (it is LA afterall). Never owned an AWD (previous cars were a 92 prelude and a 2001 accord v6). That being said, I'm completely happy with my purchase. Then again, I live in an area that doesn't snow, averages 1 inch of rain a year and I've never gone faster than 70 mph.

 

Not sure why you started this discussion since you already bought the car.
Unless you want to take a several thousand dollar hit and get an awd, the car is yours. Drive it and enjoy it - it's a nice car. Cognitive dissonance will drive you nuts

 

Great point.

 

SH-AWD is not just for snow. It does some of its best and most impressive work on dry twisty roads as well as rain soaked roads. It's been said many times on this thread, you gotta drive it to know.

 

I get more of a feeling that he/she is more regretful of buying a 4g overall. The last line suggests that the irritation isn't about handling.

 

I owned a Type S and the handling was great but lacking compared to a RWD or AWD. The problem is Acura is at a point where the torque and horsepower is approaching a point where front wheel drive can't handle it. So basically the remedy is AWD which drives the weight and price higher then some want to spend. Of course it depends if Acura decides to build a rear wheel which has as much chance as Acura building an 8 cylinder.

 

So true, it's not like you can put 550 hp on a FWD and not expect some serious issues...It appears that Honda/Acura isn't concerned with global auto sales domination like GM or Toyota, which I think took to over taking GM a tad to quickly costing them. The door has been open several times for Honda/Acura to build a RWD or V8 vehicles and they maintained the V6 path.

 

Acura consistently takes the easy route.

"The path of least resistance makes all rivers and some men crooked." -Napoleon Hill

 

So it appears...is this a economical coarse of action; stay vaule based, or is it we are behind the technology curve or is it we don't have the engineering know how or we don't have the vision from leadership. Whew! Possibilities.

 

Hard to believe they don't have the tech, engineering or vision (vision is relative). That leaves value and economy.

 

Honda builds a simple product for the masses and loads it with some of the best electonics available. Although like other car companies, Honda has had it's problems with issues such as the G2 tranny problems, but much less as proved by their dependabilty rating over the years. They went out on a limb with the new G4 styling and suffered by reduced sales on their best selling TL. I've read many threads claiming the state of our economy is to blame but it's a small percentage. I'm looking forward to the new G5 which personally I think is no longer then 2 years away. If Acura holds true to their normal path, we may see a Type S by fall as I don't think they will discontinue the Type S concept.

 

But Acura does have the tech, it's just not part of the current business plan for now. Keep an eye on any leadership changes, and you'll see change hopefully for the better meaning performance many here on this site want to see. Not that the performance sucks, but Honda can't lag to far behind the competition, but be a close follower. For the most part the company is pretty conservative which has led Honda to it's current success. IMHO

 

How does the fwd do on fast starts on wet roads. I am so used to my AWD providing full traction I am concerned about switching to fwd. My last fwd car (Accord) did not have traction control so if you started too quickly all you got was wheel slippage. How does the new technology help or hurt on wet pavement.