the same type of rumor was made before the release of the TL-SOriginally posted by PhatNastyCat:
I just read over on acura-cl.com that Autoweek is reporting 6-speed tranny to be available in the TL-S and CL-S sometime later in the year.
I know the CL is a front wheel drive vehicle, but a 6-speed could vastly improve the pleasure of driving a 260HP CL-S.
I still prefer the look of the IS and I find the IS more fun to drive.
One really big weakness I find in the CL is the weak Bose system. A great stereo is important to me to help combat the brutal commute I deal with on a daily basis.
That seems like a very fair comparism.Originally posted by soulstalker:
The CL (or TL) and the IS300 are really different cars. It really comes down to driver preference between these cars.
First off, I'll assume you mean the Type-S, so I'll compare with that in mind.
CL (or TL) Type-S
1. More HP (260HP)
2. Faster in a straight line (stock CL vs stock IS)
3. Less Expensive to buy
4. Softer Ride
5. Better Gas Mileage than the IS300.
1. Front Wheel Drive
2. Bad Handling
3. Average Styling (looks like an accord)
1. Rear Wheel Drive
2. Great Handling
3. Much Faster through curves (autoX)
4. A true tuner’s car with more total HP potential (2JZ-GE engine).
5. Unique Styling (looks great IMO)
1. Bad Gas mileage
2. Small Trunk
3. Bad Rear-Seat Leg room
Both are great cars, they are just suited for different people.
Yeah, right!Originally posted by Iridium130:
you can easily spend less than $300 to mod(springs) your CL-S to be able to hang w/ the IS in the twisties.
springs will not improve a CL-S THAT MUCH!Originally posted by Iridium130:
That seems like a very fair comparism.
I'm biased cuz I have a CL-S, but I'd say go w/ the CL-S you can easily spend less than $300 to mod(springs) your CL-S to be able to hang w/ the IS in the twisties. + no nasty Altezzas HAHA JOKE dont flame me.
That's only if one completely ignores the increased cost and complexity of building a RWD chassis/drivetrain. Taking the IS300 and CL out of the picture, the average RWD car costs around $10K more than its FWD counterpart (given similar dispacement/power, size and class.)Originally posted by SteveB:
Price is also another consideration. CL-S has a really good value compare to the IS.
By equipment you mean creature features and not any of the inherent features of these vehicles, such as the IS300's drivetrain and balance, or the CL-S's power output and interior space. We can't outfit the IS300 w/the CL-S's power output or interior space, nor can the CL-S be outfitted with the IS300's drivetrain or balance. There is no point of commonality at which a value comparison (which includes not only the cost of the creature features, but of the inherent features of the car itself) is possible. It is the proverbial comparison between apples and oranges.Originally posted by SteveB:
The IS can get expensive if you out-fit it to match the equipment levels of the CL-S.
I think the older IS300 enthusiasts on both sides of the border see the IS300 as a Miata sedan. It's hard to describe the fascination w/the Miata w/o bringing up the old MG's and Bugeye Sprites of their youth. There is a certain romance to a small and nimble RWD "driver's car" that is often lost on the younger IS300 enthusiasts, who tend to see what the car is as a means to achieve some level of performance (witness the fascination w/FI kits and track/quarter-mile times), and not as an end in itself (nobody talks about taking PCH to Big Sur, or through the vineyard-dotted Napa Valley.)Originally posted by SteveB:
An aside, I have seen more IS300s on the road in Toronto lately, but it seems the majority of the IS300s are being driven by middle aged male with family in the back seat. This statement isn't meant to be provocative or anything, but maybe the IS is also attracting older generation than the typical early twenty-something owners we have on this board. Or is it because not enough "young" folks in T.O. do not have as much money to buy the car as our brethrens in the U.S.?