marvinmartian

Both have Tech Pkg. and around 50k miles. The '12 is about $5k more than the '13. The '12 (SH-AWD) also has a manual trans. All my cars have had manual trannys so in a way that's a plus. But to be honest, I've started to become a bit annoyed with them in traffic. Traffic seems much worse in metro areas now than it was even 10 years ago, never mind 30 years ago when I started driving. :-) Plus the manual trans SH-AWD has the worst MPG of all the TLs if I'm not mistaken.

I've read great things about the SH-AWD system but is it really worth an extra $5k? I wouldn't mind saving the cash right now. Wife needs a new car soon, etc. But I'd hate regretting my purchase too. Loved my Saab, mainly for the power. I want to love my next car too.

I live in Northern VA, so we don't get much snow. But when it does snow the roads get really bad because for some reason they haven't discovered the snow plow yet in these parts. I think the state owns two, maybe.

PS. Are we allowed to link things like Autotrader here? I ask because that's where both cars are but I'm aware many forums frown on that kind of sales linkage.

marvinmartian

I also notice the '13 seats seem to have more adjustment switches?

marvinmartian

NVM I was looking at the passenger seat. Wish I could edit posts. :-(

carbonTSEX

Why not look for a SH Auto? That'll give you the best of both worlds. Either way it's still a nice car. The manual is definitely not very common.

marvinmartian

I probably should have de-emphasized the manual vs auto thing. There are only two SH-AWD cars near me in my price range (around $20k). The other one doesn't have the tech pkg.

Although your comment is well taken. I bet I'd have a harder time selling a manual trans TL than an auto.

The real issue I'm trying to decide is the SH-AWD vs FWD being worth an extra $5k. I'd like to spoil myself with the extra HP and grinning a bit more those few times I drive it in the snow. But $5k is $5k. Percentage wise, $20k is 33% more than $15k. Anyhow, that's the kind of debate going on in my head right now. The SH-AWD manual car looks like it's been taken a bit better care of. I find that general with manual tranny cars. Don't know why.

RDX10

In my opinion buying an Acura without the SH-AWD system is a huge miss. SH-AWD let's you feel like you're driving a RWD car in curves while being extremely capable in all other weather conditions. I've had both quattro and X-drive and neither of those hold a candle to the SH-AWD system. Do yourself a favor and get the SH-AWD. The 4G TL is a BIG car and without the added power/SH-AWD it may feel like a boat.

Chrispy225

I just recently bought a 2010 SH-AWD and man is it great. I driven manuals all my life. I suggest you go with the SH-AWD. It shifts like butter. It so smooth compared to my previous vehicles. Besides that the resale in manuals are more because they are more rare and car enthusiast would pay a little more for it. I live in Louisiana and it gets wet down here. The AWD really handles well. It adjusts every tire to power ratio when needed and grips to the road. So it's helped me a lot in the rainy season down here.

dopeboy1

Both will get you down the road I guess it depends if you want to spend 5k more to enjoy it a little more. That being said the SH-AWD is great, I took mine out in the middle of the worst snow storm we got last winter and it was so much fun. I wanted to see what it could do and defiantly put it sideways a bunch of times but the car always went where I pointed it. So much traction that at times I barely felt the snow and there was a lot of it.

WNY PAT

I've got no problem with the FWD TL, it's a fine car. Both the FWD and AWD are durable well made cars that will last a long time if you take care of them and perform the maintenance recommended, especially servicing the rear diff (on the AWD) and tranny. The manual SH-AWD TL is a beast by all accounts.. I wish I had the manual but found an absolutely mint TL with the auto. Even with the auto, the car is a blast to drive. The AWD system is probably one of the best kept secrets out there, it is simply magic when driving the car near the its limits. 0-60 in 5.3 seconds and once you have the RPMs up, it pulls hard well beyond 120 MPH. It'll pull a full G on the skid pad with summer tires. If you want to see one in action, there are a couple good youtube Go Pro videos with the SH-AWD TL running with WRXs and Evos, passing some and being passed by some. Considering the TL can very nicely double as a family cruiser by day, the performance is impressive to say the least. I think k you'll fine the AWD TL is A LOT more car than any of the older FWD Saab products IMO.

marvinmartian

Indeed it is. I test drove a few today. Posted about it in another thread. I really loved the car. Now I just need to find a solid one at the price point I'd like. Might take a little while unfortunately. Thankfully I'm not in a huge rush. Sadly the car I liked most today had some mystery issues, not the least of which was some light brown discoloring under hood, in the hood liner.

JM2010 SH-AWD

If you're an enthusiast you will most definitely want the SH-AWD, especially with the manual. The manual trans coupled with the SH-AWD works magic on this car. Try them both on a winding two-laner and you'll see what I mean. I wouldn't sweat the MPG issue much. In my experience, MTs (at least from Honda/Acura) always seem to outperform (substantially) the EPA's estimates. Plus, the MT is faster to 60 by perhaps as much as a second than the Auto SH-AWD.
If, on the other hand, you're looking only for a commuter car, the FWD TL will serve your needs well, as long as you have the Tech package. It's reasonably quick and quiet with comfy seats and a great sound system. I don't think you'll go wrong with either one, but you can tell where my tastes lie. Good luck.

Beak14

Unless I could buy the 6MT from its original owner, I'd be inclined to pass on the car. Why? This is just an impression, but it seems like these cars are beat on, quite hard. It's a blast to drive, so I've heard, so who could blame a person, for having a bit too much fun? So, the challenge to find one that doesn't need a 3.5k $ clutch job might be rather hard. Oh, and there seems to be a positive correlation between 6MT's and oil burning. Just to be clear, I think oil burning in cars, with the 6MT, is more profound. I know, I know, everybody on here knows how to drive a manual. IIRC, Honda limits launching the 6MT SH-AWD to 4k RPM's, but still... These are just my thoughts on a "used" 6MT, SH-AWD, and they're worth what you paid for them, I'm sure, lol.

Then, you have the auto SH-AWD, which is what I have, and I love it. If you didn't know that it was, essentially, a FWD car, with a bunch of extra hardware, and tuning, you really couldn't tell if it was FWD, or RWD, as it's fantastically neutral, when driving it around. It really is magnificent. But, it's more money, has (can have) issues with its propeller shaft (even though there is a new part out - so I've heard - part costs about 1k), might have an issue with its TC, and some have complained about oil burning. The 3.7L, that's in the Shawdy, is wonderful, but it's no longer in production, unfortunately. Dual VTEC (intake and exhaust), yo!

Lastly, the FWD, which is a great commuter car, albeit, some have had problems with their TC's. But, otherwise, the car's essentially bullet-proof (if there's such a thing). If you want something relatively cheap to own, the FWD TL is hard to beat. Plus, who'd argue with its crash tests results, or deaths per 1M miles driven? It's safe, fast-enough, reliable as all get-out, and it looks good, with the Tech package. Sans the Tech package, nah!

Good luck, let us know what you buy!

marvinmartian

I drove both a 6MT SHAWD and a 6AT FWD yesterday. After more than 30 years of all manual tranny cars, I think I'm done, at least for now. The northern VA / DC area has brutal traffic. Ironically, when I drove the 6MT I ended up smack in a construction zone that reminded me of the fact. It could also be that the 6AT Honda has made is really spectacular. I've driven lots of AT cars (rentals on vacation) and the TLs was the best by far.

losiglow

iTrader: (1)

I test drove both the SH-AWD and the FWD. The AWD on the TL really is the best system out there IMO. It nearly defies physics. Now if Honda just put out an engine that competed with the Germans it would be nearly complete As to which you go with, I'd say it largely depends on what you're looking for. The two have a great deal of similarities obviously - both have plenty of power, the same interior, same tech package, etc. The SH-AWD is definitely a drivers car but the FWD is certainly much more than a glorified Honda Accord (having driven my parents 2016 Touring V6 several times). After much deliberation and several test drives with both trims I ended up going with the FWD. My reasoning mainly revolved around reliability and cost of ownership which are both better with the FWD. I was quite concerned about the potential high ticket repairs with the propeller shaft and 3.7 oil issue. I hang onto my cars for a long time which would likely guarantee I'd encounter one or both of those issues. I also wanted the better MPG's since I use it to commute. For me, the SH-AWD would have simply been a luxury, not a necessity. We get plenty of snow here in Utah, but with Bridgestone Blizzaks, I was running circles around Subaru's and SUV's with all season tires all day long, especially up in Park City when I was driving Uber during ski season. If you purchase the AWD, let it be for the increased performance, not for the weather. Safe handling in bad weather is 10% drivetrain, 90% traction (i.e. Tires).

marvinmartian

Thanks for that. That's pretty much my line of thinking too. The main issue for me now is just finding one in the color scheme I want, at the price I want, that doesn't have some obvious yellow flags, that isn't more than a 1hr drive away. Currently, there are none. :-(

I'm sure there are many threads on the subject, but I can't see why these things burn oil? I'm assuming most folks use good, real, synthetic AND change at appropriate intervals. My Saab has 197k miles and does not burn a drop. Or I should say, I don't notice any significant drop in oil level between changes (every 5-7k miles). I'm sure it burns some but it's not enough to notice.

losiglow

iTrader: (1)

The 3.5L in the FWD does not burn oil. It's the 3.7L in the SH-AWD that is prone to it. I believe it has to do with the siliconized aluminum liners used in the 3.7L which are designed to reduce friction. The 3.5L doesn't have those. I have 125K on my 2012 TL and I literally have never had to add oil to the engine, and I typically go about 10K-12K miles between oil changes using Mobil 1 Extended Performance with the Mobil 1 filter. The same goes for the 3.5L in my Honda Pilot and it has 200K miles. Folks with the 3.7L have reported having to add 1qt. of oil as often as every 1000 miles, though it seems more common to have to add every 2-4K miles. Supposedly the dealer states that the oil consumption is normal which I personally believe is a giant crock, resulting from Acura/Honda not realizing the issue until it was too late. There are some on this fourm that have had their engine replaced as many as three times which still have the issue since the same engine with the same liners are used each time. Based on the owners of the 3.7L, it appears there's around 75% or so that begin consuming oil at around 30K-50K miles. I suspect, based on that, that it may be a piston seal issue. Maybe the seals wear faster from the siliconized aluminum? That seems counterintuitive since it's supposedly reducing friction. Either way, I don't have time for that noise.

There are plenty of SH-AWD owners that have never had the problem however. So it's kind of a crapshoot. I don't think that issue would entirely deter me from purchasing a SH-AWD if I really wanted one. Just something that would need to be considered and expected.