BarryH

Good points. You can look at it another way also. My $48K BMW is only costing me $100 more a month than a $35K TL and comes with free maintenance. On a lease it's all about the residual. If I was shopping based on lowest monthly payment for a decent car, the TL would win. If I was shopping based on what my monthly payment bought me (which I was) the BMW would win. I never keep a car out of warranty so long term repair costs don’t influence me.

chiawei

this number is skewed. My TL costed me more to own than the 530i.

It really depends on how long you are going to keep your car.

530i costed me nothing to maintain or in repairs. Insurance on my 530i was actually slightly cheaper than the TL.

The TL: cost me about $100 per schedule A maint. about 300 for 15k service, the 30k service costed me about $600 to complete. This does not include 2 brake job that i paid for due to warped pads and uneven brake disc.

It costed me $3k out of pocket to keep the TL running while the 530i costed me nothing. Granted, I did not keep my 530i past the warranty period. However, I have never intended to keep a car around for more than 2-3 years. So this worked to my advantage.
The gas mileage was also better with my 530i than the 2000 TL.

All in all, my cost of ownership on the 530i was $0 for repairs+ $2900 for gas. The car was bought including tax $55k. Sold it for 28k. $30k for 32k miles.

The TL costed me $34k, sold it for 16k. $3k in repairs, $3400 for gas. about $25k in 3 year time frame. Therefore in my case, my TL is only about $5k cheaper for me to own and drive the same amount of mile and time.

I would gladly take that 5k hit in driving a much more fun car.

999999

Chaiwei,

I think that it is pretty well accepted that the 530 drive feel is better. Concerning the skidpad and slalom, I saw two different magazine comparisons that showed the two cars within .01 on the pad and the TL 2-3 miles better on the slalom. Maybe it's driver differences.

Don't get me wrong, if the 530 were the same price, I would give it serious consideration, but that would be entirely based on drive feel. Measurable performance is close overall. Features and reliability are better at Acura and , by definiton, the extra BMW status would be gone at a TL price. I would even think about it if the $$ depreciation were comparable.

999999

Chaiwei, regarding the cost of ownership: I guess that we can accept your undocumented single data point or we can accept stats on thousands of cars. I guess that readers will just have to choose.

chiawei

my cost is not undocumented. all my service record are with the following 3 acura dealerships, Steven Creek, Pleasanton, and Los Gatos. Pleasanton/Steven creek refused to fix the brakes under warranty. $100 for oil change is normal here in SF bay area.

I am not disputing that long term the BMW will cost way more to own. However, there are people like me that sell their car before warranty is up or is bored with it. Hence, to me, the out of pocket expense is not that great.

Just remember to never own a BMW out of warranty and you will find that the cost of ownership is not that high.

btw, here is the new 3.0 valvetronic L6 going into 2005 530i and 330i.

Xpditor

The residual values of all things is based on actual market transactions. For autos, that means auction action. National Auto Research publishes a "Black Book" which reports on auctions all over the country. ALG uses that data.

Also, it is well known that manufacturers will, from time to time, subsidize this residual value.... fluff it up to entice more leasees. If a make and model is regularly subsidized, I think it might show in the ALG formula as they are reporting actual leases and not just pure auction sales.

BarryH

And exactly what you said is why the star ratings are important. The Chrysler 300M couldn't be any more heavily subsidized but it did OK because the cost of ownership was low against what I can only imagine is a crappy end of lease value.

Xpditor

Here is the report from April 04 Car and Driver as posted on the VW forum:

TL
0-60: 6.3sec
1/4 mile: 14.8sec@96.6mph
skidpad: 0.87g
slalom: 65.8mph
braking: 123ft from 60mph/210 from 80mph
fuel economy: 20/30mpg

530i
0-60: 6.7sec
1/4 mile: 15.0sec@95.0mph
skidpad: 0.86g
slalom: 64.1mph
braking: 119ft from 60mph/214ft from 80mph
fuel economy: 20/30mpg

Note: testing conditions were identical (temp, humidity, etc) and the figures given are for a regular TL (not optioned with A-Spec). With A-Spec, the skidpad and slalom numbers would probably be a little better. The 530i numbers come from a car optioned with the Sports package.


Please note that the TL stops shorter from 80 MPH than the BMW 530i with Sports Package. I further draw your attention to the slalom speed. I repeat: the TL outperforms the BMW 520 in nearly every measurable objective way (emotion removed).

There's my support. Where's yours? :P

This is your clue to say, "Well the TL is not that much better concerning all the extra horsepower it has."

Regards,
XP (who enjoys a polite, informed, discussion)

999999

Chaiwei,

I would agree that the cost advantage of the Acura gets bigger beyond the warranty period - especially since it's pretty cheap to buy a complete Acura warranty. I don't think that BMW offers that.

I can't speak to your BMW prices, but your Tl prices look a little strange. A non-navi base 2001 TL could not have cost more than $30,500 new . That same car with 36000 miles shows at 17,560 now for a private pary transaction. That would be under 13,000 depreciaton rather than 18,000.

Also, is it free to finance your car? That extra 21,000 at 5% would be 1100 per year.

It looks to me like the difference for the typical owner would be in the 8000 to 12000 range. For some, it's worth it. That's what makes markets work.

chiawei

no, my was a 2000 TL with Navi, bout in 4/2000. Sold in 2003 when 2004 was just around corner. 16k was the amount that insurance gave me after the car is written off by my wife. However, i did begin looking to sell the car prior to my wife's accident. I found no taker at $17k that I asked.

I never finance my car. If you need to take a loan to buy a car, then you can't afford it. This is always been my philosophy. car is a luxury items, and I will never finance a luxury item.

BarryH

My Volvo out performs my BMW in every statistical way. The BMW feels much better when pushed though. How do you measure that? Hyundai's are now statistically more reliable than Honda's. Would you really want to drive a Hyundai?

chiawei

The problem is that Car and Driver has not yet did a comparison test on the 530i.

The only report on the 530i was done in jan 2004 issue.

In which the following was taken directly from Car and driver website.

"With a flat body, nearly perfect 50/50 weight distribution (thanks to extensive use of aluminum up front), and wide 245/40WR-18 Dunlop run-flats, our test car rocketed around the skidpad with minimal understeer at a stunning 0.90 g. By comparison, the previous 530i with a Sport package pulled 0.82, and the Sport-package Mercedes E320 returned 0.84 g of grip. Hell, a Porsche Boxster pulls 0.93"

530i sports package

Here are the brake numbers
"The brakes (using the same 12.8-inch front rotors as the old car and 0.9-inch-larger 12.6-inch rear rotors) are equally impressive, stopping the 530i from 70 mph in only 167 feet-better than all the car's competitors, except the similarly performing E320."

In addition, this is C&D's comment on the TL's brake "However, in our test, in cold weather, the A-Spec needed 174 feet to stop."

I rest my case.

then again, i do not need to lie since the number speaks for itself.

BarryH

Huh? With leases and loans at 1.9%, the $35K you're paying in cash better be able to make more for you in interest than you're paying in finance charges. If not, get a new financial planner.

999999

Chaiwei,

So now we are getting to the bottom of part of this. an insurance payoff? Wonder what that would have been on th BMW.

Also, let me introduce you to the concept of "opportunity cost". You could actually invest that 20G and make something on it.

In summary, your nmbers may not mean much toa potential buyer. The pros' numbers are more reliable, in my opinion. They say that it costs 10G more to own a 2004 530 for three years or 13G more for 5 years. Once again, the feel and status are worth it to some buyers. BMW is selling them.

chiawei

the problem is that I am financially well off. The amount that I spend on cars really is an insignificant amount for me.

999999

Barry,

Do you lease? The rates look good, but I have never run into an example where the assumed residual was equal to or more than what I was confident I could sell the car for. I think that there might be a fudge factor in there for the lessors. Plus, I am concerned about getting nicked for 'condition" even though I treat my cars pretty well.

chiawei

1. I do not know what the insurance payoff would be on the 530i. Since 530i was not totalled. 28k is not that high of a price for 32k miles 530i. My old RX300 (2001 with 29k when traded in for the 04 E500, actually fetched me $24k, which i paid $41k). Lexus holds value much much better than both acura and BMW.

2. Oppourtunity cost? it really depends on who you talk to. 20K is not much to invest with. heck, uncle sam probably would take all my profit away. so to me this is a mute point.

Since october of last year I have spent over 360k on cars alone. So a mere 20k oppourtunity cost is an insiginificant amount to me.

Pro number are more reliable? hmm. how would you know that for a fact?

999999

Well Chaiwei,

When folks look at your logic, I think that they will understand.

BarryH

Mostly lease because I don't keep my cars. The Volvo's purchased because their residuals suck and, because it's an R wagon, I should get out clean after three years by selling it private party. If you flip your cars a lot, and take care of them, leasing's a good financing alternative. God help you if you terminate early, go over the mileage cap, or beat the car. I've leased close to a dozen cars and have never had a charge applied when I returned them. That's because they're detailed regularly, covered night and day, and never touched by a machine wash. When I brought back the TL-S (30 month lease), the appraiser said it's the cleanest car he's ever seen returned.

chas083

Please, my e46 3 series' windows rattle like crazy when both up and down. Window regulators were replaced and they rattled worse when rolled down now. Several build issues with it.

chas083

Your reliability statement is not valid if you are using 2 cars as your sample size.

mark_12345

999999, sorry for the late reply but I have a life outside of this board you know... ;-)

So how did I "fails to address his mesrepresentations entirely"?

I stated that Acura's are not always reliable and it really depends on the buyers experience. I had a 2003 Chevy Tahoe for about a year and put 12K miles on it without ANY problems. My Porsche Boxster S I've had for a year not a single problem. My 2001 CL had all sorts of problems including transmission replacement.

Like I said, "..it really depends on the buyers experience." Some buyers are willing to tolerate rattles, minor issues, while some buyers will bring in their cars for the slightest issue.

Now with regards to styling, its very subjective. For example, you say that the current E46 styling is already outdated. I beg to differ as I think the styling is classic BMW ( I can't say what the new E90 as it hasn't come out yet). The new Acura TL didn't really do anything for me when I first saw it or when I drove it. It really felt like any other luxurious front wheel drive car (i.e. Honda Accord)

Lets drop this as it is pointless to argue about styling...

mark_12345

Thus I followed with my statement by saying that, "..the only mountain of data that I have is the 2 Acura's that I owned..."

Xpditor

Yes. They gave me partial financing at 2.6% at a time my stock portfolio is paying 20%. I would have to have a screw loose to cash in stocks earning that kind of return to pay cash for a car. And I don't leave cash laying around. I put it to work.

XP

999999

Mark,

This thread has about had it, but here goes.

I'll go with the stats compiled by Consumer Reprts and the like verus limited anecdotal evidence any day.

In regards to not arguing about styling, you will find that it was you that brought that up in the discussion to start with ( and then mistated the Acura new model schedule).

I like Acuras. I like BMWs. I also have this thing about accuracy.

1SICKLEX

This is too funny. B/C I don't see 3 series owners saying their cars are better than say an E-class. I don't see IS 300 owners saying their cars are better than an A6. I don't see A4 owners saying their cars are better than the 5 series.

But somehow, we find the TL better or equal to the 5-series. This is utterly ridiculous.
In every magazine comparison, they compared it to the 3-series, not the 5-series. It's one thing to feel good about your purchase and there is this......

http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84613

Class Action Lawsuit in progress for this reliable car.

Xpditor

You are correct and I apologize. It was the April 2004 issue of Road & Track- who does a more thorough, enthusiast oriented wringing out of cars IMO. I have double-checked to verify the numbers they got. They are correct as I posted them. You can look for yourself at www.roadandtrack.com. You can download the very informative data sheets.

TL
0-60: 6.3sec
1/4 mile: 14.8sec@96.6mph
skidpad: 0.87g
slalom: 65.8mph
braking: 123ft from 60mph/210 from 80mph
fuel economy: 20/30mpg

530i
0-60: 6.7sec
1/4 mile: 15.0sec@95.0mph
skidpad: 0.86g
slalom: 64.1mph
braking: 119ft from 60mph/214ft from 80mph
fuel economy: 20/30mpg


Don't get too comfortable. Your case still doesn't hold water. You have said that the TL (to paraphrase) can't hold a candle to the BMW in the handling and ride department. According to Road & Track, it surpasses the BMW at its own game. This should put the myth to rest that FWD cars don't handle well.


They certainly do, don't they. As the old saying goes: Figures don't lie; but liars figure.

Thanks for correcting me on the magazine's name: Road & Track, not Car & Driver.

Over to you.

XP

Xpditor

Maybe. I don't know. I never have tried one. I'm not biased against them. Are you? Have you driven one and checked it out?

If so, please share.

You seem to put great weight on a car's name and status (not that there's anything wrong with that.)

XP

BarryH

Tried one/biased against one what? I don't know which car you're talking about. I've driven the new TL (non A-Spec) overnight if that's what you mean. I've also owned two recent Acura's so I'm not an outsider. If I was a car snob, I certainly wouldn't have gotten a Volvo (or owned two Acura's). My R was $48K which could have bought some more elitist nameplates if that's what I was in to. Hell, on a lease, I probably could have gotten a 545 for the same money.

Xpditor

Please refer to my posting- esp. the part where I quote your question: Would I buy a Hyundai.

My post was in response to your question about the Hyundai.

XP

chiawei

Not really. Road track is a set of numbers. I can't find actual number either. However, road and track gave it 29.3 out of 30 on skippad. That does not tell me anything. Moreover, pretty much anyone that has tested the 530i has posted significantly better than 0.86G that road and track.

In addition, the TL that pulled 0.87G comes with upgraded tires. I will wait for the result of a full blown comparison on R&T with base car and base tire to make a conclusioin.

According to R&T, it did not praise TL for it's handling "with a slightly more rubber-isolated feel than a 3 Series BMW", torque steer i won't bring up since that is a common drawback on the FF. Hence, that is not a fair comparison.

The TL rides softer. But it gives up road feel in which you really need.

BTW, where does R&T diss the myth that FWD doesn't handle well. In fact, this is one area that R&T put down the TL. "It's a little disconcerting, and makes us wish the driven wheels were behind the back seat"

I think this speaks for itself. Absolute grip number is an indication of grip at turns, by no means is equates to excellent handling.

Xpditor

As I suggested, you have to download the data sheet to get all the specifics. Click on the icon for Data Panel at www.roadandtrack.com.


It IS a base TL with the $200 optional HP summer tires. So do you suggest that $50 extra per tire turns a bad handler into a BMW beater? They are still stock Bridgestone Potenzas from the factory. Similar to the tires on the Sport Package that the BMW 530i was equipped with. I think you are grasping at straws.

Weren't you the one who was telling me how the E60 M5 pulled a .87 and you thought that was wonderful? Why is wonderful on an M5 but not on a TL?

No, that's OK. In all my posts, I was careful to say "objective measurements with emotion removed". That removes "feel" from the equation for purposes of this discussion. I have always said that the subjective "feel" of the BMW is better. I know. I have one of each (TL and BMW).

Need for what? Why? If a car can go through the slalom faster with better grip, what purpose does the traditional harsh "feel" serve? Or, is it just tradition? I heard this same argument when sports cars first got power steering. People thought it to be sacrilege. Now, we just accept it.

The objective, measured performance of the base TL's handling which exceeded that of a similar sized (car and engine) BMW 530i with a Sport Package shouts that fact loud and clear. FWD has arrived. If, in the next magazine comparo, the BMW slightly edges out the TL - fine. It won't change the fact that they are essentially equals in the handling department. A discussion of how each "feels" while they're doing it is a separate one and I will be on your side of that discussion.

I would further direct you to the comparo of seven 6 cyl. upscale sedans also tested by Road and Track in the June 2004 issue (cover story). The BMW 530 didn't do so well. Here is the order in which they finished The 530 was second to last.

Cadillac CTS (1)
Mercedes-Benz E320 (2)
Jaguar S-Type (3)
Chrysler 300 (4)
Audi A6 3.0 Quattro (5)
BMW 530i (6)
Volvo S80 T6 (7)

As with the other stories, you can download the Data Panel for all the numbers.

As a BMW owner, I am embarrassed. Especially when two Amercian lead-sleds like Cadillac and Chrysler come in higher. The times, they are a-changing.

Regards,
XP

youngTL

I believe that that link refers to the SECOND gen TL, which is not in the discussion. I agree with your first 2 paragraphs though. I for one think cars should be compared on how much they cost, because people are likely to cross shop cars that are in the same price range. The fact that the TL even comes CLOSE to cars priced much above it is a compliment to it.

From what I've seen, Lexus has the best reliability in the long term (even better than Toyota b/c of quality control), but Honda/Acura vehicles have good reliability too. They should have had a recall on that tranny in 2nd gens. Meanwhile my first gen tranny (and the rest of my car) is rock solid. 172396km as of this afternoon and the only thing I need is routine maintanence except for one issue. My outer C/V boots did crack when the temperature dipped below -40°C here in February (when the car was in the hands of the previous owners). My buddy has an Integra LS with over 260000km on it and he drives the shit out of it (it's an auto tranny) and it's still running well. Honda engines are world-class. At least when the auto trannies work, they work properly. The Lexus ES300/330 tranny doesn't like to downshift. It hesistates. My experience of characteristics (in the lower range, not talking about the insanely expensive cars)

Acura - sporty, affordable, luxury, excellent reliability
BMW - sporty, expensive, luxury, above average reliability
MB - really expensive, high luxury, average reliability
Lexus - expensive, high luxury,most excellent reliability
Audi (I don't have much experience with them, havent even driven one or know anyone that has one).
Note that reliability doesn't mean fit and finish. It bothers me that some people think that a car with rattles or something is unreliable. No, if your car breaks down all the time, that's unreliable. I'm sure many would agree with that.

RTDyer

BMW is overpriced compared to Acura because the manufacturing efficiency of BMW is several percentage points inferior to Acura. It is that simple.

chiawei

Like I have said. C&D 530i sports pulled 0.90G. Road track simply has the worst set of number. So what makes R&T more correct than C&D.

You are inventing statment to make a point? WHEN DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT E60 M5 skip pad? So to make your point you have to invent bogus lies?

All I said is that 530i SP pulled 0.9G on C&D test.

Obvious you have not read the report. 530i was 2nd in performance point. It got knock down to 6th because of I-drive and price. Not because of performance. mind you.

Both Caddy and Chrysler end up higher because both were price leader not because the car performed better.

In addition, during the comparison, R&T used base 530i minus sports package. Obviously you simply took a glance and came up with idiotic conclusion.

Vroman

[QUOTE=chiawei]
Obvious you have not read the report. 530i was 2nd in performance point. It got knock down to 6th because of I-drive and price. Not because of performance. mind you.
QUOTE]

Who was first in performance?

1SICKLEX

[QUOTE=Vroman]I think the CTS was. :sqnteek: Amazing how Caddy did it.

Bobzmcishl

I talked to my local Volvo dealer about the R wagon and they told me they had 1 comiing in in July. This sounds like another "halo car", to get buyers into showroom and then try to switch them to something else. I like the fact that Acura acutually produces TL's in fairly significant numbers except for their grossly underestimating demand for the Nav cars. They probably felt most buyers wouldn't want a $ 2000 option. They were wrong.

Xpditor

The numbers only make sense if they are comparative and done by the same testers under the same conditions. R&T does that in the issue I referred you to. They tested the Base TL and then they tested the BMW 530i Sport Package. The issue of C&D you are referring to did not test the TL at that time under the same conditions. Let's compare apples with apples; not apples with oranges. When the two were tested contemporaneously by the same magazine under the same conditions, the TL was faster, quicker, and had higher skid pad numbers and higher slalom numbers.

For you to say another magazine under different conditions got .04g's better measurement for the BMW doesn't mean much unless they also tested the TL. They didn't. If they had, maybe the BMW would have done slightly better. Maybe. But they didn't do it so we will never know.


No. Here is your direct quote earlier in the discussion:

Can't you tell the difference between a question and a "bogus lie"? Hint: the question ends in a question mark. I asked if you were the one who made that statement. Once I looked it up, I realized you were talking about the E39 M5. I'm afraid I don't know what all those E numbers mean. To me, I just remembered what you said about the M5 pulling a 0.87g and further saying that their grips are better than most cars with double wishbone. The test in R&T proves that, not only did the TL top the 530i in the skid pad, but it equalled the number YOU gave for the M5. My point remains in place.

There is no need for you to get all hyper and personal. No need to create strawman arguments. No need to call people liars without checking your own words and responding to the question I asked. You could have simply said, "No. I didn't say an E60 M5 pulled a 0.87g. I said an E39 pulled 0.87g." But, that would risk sounding like you were splitting hairs, wouldn't it?

My post did not say the magazine restricted its testing to just performance factors. You are correct that it considered other factors. They always do. Even in the performance catagory, the BMW lost out to a Cadillac CTS. So, your above statement is not accurate. (Notice I am not getting nasty and calling you a liar.) As far as the Caddy goes, it DID end up higher because of better performance (and a host of other factors).


There you go again getting personal and insulting! The conclusion that the BMW 530i finished 6th out of 7 vehicles was not MY conclusion. It was the conclusion of the testers and editors of Road & Track. I merely read it and reported it accurately to you with footnoted referrences.

If you don't like the message, please don't start tripping and trying to kill the messenger.

Regards,
XP

TLud

I enjoy these debates to the extent that they stack up and weigh different cars against each other that everyone knows inside are great, whether or not they admit it outwardly.

Yes, no one here has statistically significant experience with any brand or model car to make realistic comparisons. And everyone is going to have their own statistics to quote, but this is all that we, as individuals, have to go on.

I do get somewhat peeved though, when people turn comparisons like this into judgments about the people that buy these cars. I bought a BMW over the TL (barely), but does that make me a snob, interested only in the prestige of the name, uneducated, and loose with my money? I don't think so. I can tell you exactly why I spent the extra money to get my car (and none of those reasons involved the blue and white propeller on the front), but I can just as easily understand why a different person would not see it as being worthwhile to spend the extra dough.

I got my 330Ci ZHP because it is just as fast as the TL, it outhandles the TL, it didn't give me the floaty sensation that I got from the TL, the interior materials and overall fit and finish is better than the TL (although I like the TL's interior design and features much better), interior and exterior mods are more available and easier to impliment, and numerous other more subjective reasons.

There are lots of things about the TL that are better than the BMW, and I'll be the first to admit it because I really agonized over the decision (as much agony as can be involved in a decision over which sport lux to buy). I had the extra money to spend, but I didn't spend it lightly.

Say what you want about the cars because that's what this forum is here for, but don't turn it into personal attacks on each other.

That being said, the new 5 series looks so hideous, it makes me want to cry every time I see it. It also feels much less connected with the road, and the interior has gone to heck. I'd take a TL over a 5er any day.