Wikipedia

Talk:Acura TL

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 2603:8001:A301:A846:5878:2834:D81F:CFA6 in topic 2004-2006 Acura TL

It looks like the text for the 2003MY info was duplicated from the 2004MY section. If you read it in context, and how it refers to being the first year of a new gen, it's apparent that it is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.229.212 (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how the newly-added cars are "related." I mean, I can understand if they are derived from the same platform, but explain to me why the Odyssey and Pilot belong on the "related" table. --MUSpud2 16:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The EPA Fuel Economy Guide [1] and Kelley's Blue Book [2] both claim the TL debuted in 1995, not 1996. If anyone can prove otherwise, please do so, otherwise, we can fix this article appropriately. --Vossanova 14:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The TL debuted as a 1996 model. This can be found on Hondanews.com under the archives. Inspire97 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

"The debut of the Acura TSX took over from the TL as Acura's entry-level car for the United States; the TL is known for more as a luxury car, while the TSX is known for more of a balance between sport and luxury."

Wouldn't the RSX be Acura's entry level car? The TL (and its predecessors) were always a mid-level part of Acura's lineup. The RSX was also released before the TSX. Wanted to check in with people before editing...Cocoloco 13:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Err, the TL article should be merged with the Acura Legend article, since the TL was a replacement for the Legend. Also, I removed the first generation picture, since it should be replaced with an image showing the car without custom rims. ←T•h•e R.S.J.→ 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it was the replacement for the RL, so disregard the merge suggestion. ←T•h•e R.S.J.→ 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

the TL was a replacement for the vigor as was the rsx for the integra no real replacement for the cl though70.133.172.192 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply


There are inaccuracies , the 1999-2003 Acura TL thus eventhough having a V6 is not on directlly related nor same platform. The 1999-2003 Acura TL is CL1 Based Honda Accord for right hand drive asian markets , specifically Japan. Which was introduced in 1997-2002 . It debuted in 1997 with models such as the Type R , SiR and SiR-T and in 2002 Euro R which ended all the upper brand Sports models. Cosmetics such as gauges featured in the 2000-2002 SiR-T and Euro R were also used in the Type S TL american model a year later after the CL7,CL9 Accord and Euro R Debuted which in turn was released later in america as the Acura TSX Kongkit (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)KongkitKongkit (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply 

State to the fact the 1997-2002 CL1 Honda Accord SiR ,and SiR-T and Euro R interior layout and seating arrangment , doors , minus the Recaro sports seats that came on asian marketed sport models , but the white faced gauges as on the SiR-T and Euro R were also again used as the template for the TL Type S gauges , Even the same wood inserts were used inside the vehicle.Kongkit (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)KongkitKongkit (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Kongkit68.226.233.116 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

"USDM" vs. US-market

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For the sake of accuracy and precision, it is important that we take care to use market terminology correctly. "USDM" is not a synonym for "US market" or for "North American market" or for "NAFTA market". The D in terms like USDM, JDM, ADM, and EDM stands for domestic. A Chevrolet Impala sold in Illinois can rightly be called a US-market or USDM vehicle; it was made by an American company for sale in the US market. A Mercedes S500L sold in Illinois is a US-market vehicle, but it is not a USDM vehicle, because it is not a D-for-domestic product. A Honda Accord, even if it is built in Ohio and is a version only sold in the US market, is not a USDM vehicle. It is a US-market vehicle (or, more properly, a North American- or NAFTA-market vehicle). A Mazda Axela is a JDM vehicle, but a Toyota Cavalier is a Japanese-market vehicle. The matter is blurred by the odd colloquial usage of "JDM" to refer to a whole whackload of vehicle restyling products, many of which have nothing to do with Japan (compare "Euro style" accessories), and things get a little sticky when trying to figure out where to place the demarcation line — is a Mexican-built Dodge a USDM vehicle? — Nevertheless, it's probably best for us to try and reserve the "D" terms for those situations in which they're veritable referents to the vehicles in question. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Reads like an advertisment

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Jeez, the all-new redesigned upmarket section describing all the benefits of the award-winning Acura TL reads a bit like commercial copy, no? Riptor3000 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a bit. Why do they even put a bonnet on it when it has so many silly engine covers? Nevard (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
The all-new, etc. phrases have been removed. MTan355 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Type S

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Most newspapers say that the Type-S will return in 2010 so therefore the SH-AWD does not technically replace the Type-S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Photos

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's been a disagreement about photo placement in this article that I'd like some editors to weigh in on. Here is the diff of the different versions.

User:Biala Gwiazda prefers to see the first photo in the gallery below be used in the lead infobox image as well as in the infobox for its own generation, because it is "blank with no flair" and "much nicer" than the second photo in the gallery. The same reasoning apparently also applies to the user's preference for the third photo over the fourth, at the expense of any pre-facelift non-specialty photo from that generation, despite it being covered with reflections I'd consider very distracting and a more cluttered background.

(Sidenote: of the photos above, I took all but the second)

I'd consider the top infobox choices approximately equal in quality, though the silver car has a more appealing background and angle. However, if we were to avoid duplication of the black car in both the top and fourth-gen infoboxes, there are only iffy-quality photos available to replace it further down, whereas there are many suitable gen-3 options.

What are other people's preferences? IFCAR (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with IFCAR, the third image (black, third generation) is not a particularly good one. Black and dark grey coloured vehicles tend to be difficult to photograph without distracting reflections. Also, the bodywork detailing shows up much better on lighter coloured vehicles. From a thumbnail image size, it is very difficult to tell if the third image depicts a TL or the similar-looking TSX. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

2012 model? not out yet

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the last section, they speak in past tense of the 2012 model. It's February of 2011 as I write. Do they mean the 2011 model? Or the 2010 model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.184.186 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Um, head image must be of HIGHER QUALITY, not the latest model. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You think this is cool?

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It is a 2007 Acura TL "Chevy V8 Racer".

All original. Only 400 horsepower and 3,435 lbs. Take it to the dragstrip and it reaches 10.3 @ 120 mph in the 1/4 mile. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtDN2Sismjg --Mrtacos2 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

can u swap the j32a3 motor into the 96 acura 2.5 tl73.109.61.59 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Acura TL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

2004-2006 Acura TL

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a v6 engine with 4 cylinders on the Acura TL or does it come stock with a v6 engine with 6 cylinders? 2603:8001:A301:A846:5878:2834:D81F:CFA6 (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nope the TL was always V6. A V6 is twice a 3-cylinder with a "twin"-inline

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acura_TL&oldid=1197967559"