1998 Acura TL 2.5 vs 2000 Acura 3.2

^ that 2000 acura has the same POS trannies as the 6th gen accords ... GL

make sure u don't get any clunky or delayed shifts

kleptodathief wrote: ↑^ that 2000 acura has the same POS trannies as the 6th gen accords ... GL

make sure u don't get any clunky or delayed shifts

Does it mean it would be better to get the 1998 2.5 TL and save $2K ? It will probably take less gas too as it is 2.5 (not 3.2).

rdx wrote: ↑I am thinking to buy a used car mainly for the purpose to commute to go station and park there. Basically, looking for a cheap but reliable car.

I am wondering if I should get 1998 Acura TL 2.5 or 2000 Acura 3.2, provided their mileages are pretty much the same (about 200K-250K range). One is older model which is about $2,000 cheaper. Exterior looks pretty much the same (not as dramatic change as the 2004 TL which I like the most but over my budget :P )

I was actually thinking to get EL but I see its price is almost the same or higher than TL for the same year. So, decided to spend the same money for the higher model :P I know it will take more gas but I won't drive a lot with it anyway.

What do you guys think? I heard TL has transmission issue, not sure if it applies to both models.

I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions

I personally like the 3.2TL. Beware of transmission problems, and make sure you ask about if it has been replaced, or drive it around to see. Almost every single Honda from 1998-2006 has had transmission problems, but we have a 2004 TL and a 2005 Pilot, and luckily they are all good (so far). I wouldn't get the 2.5TL just because of uncertainty of parts and reliability (not sure if it would be easy to get parts/hands on the I-5 in that car).

TBH, I would rather go for the 1.6/1.7EL...unless you really need the extra space.

So: 3.2TL>=1.6EL/1.7EL> 2.5TL

kleptodathief wrote: ↑^ that 2000 acura has the same POS trannies as the 6th gen accords ... GL

make sure u don't get any clunky or delayed shifts

Does it mean it would be better to get the 1998 2.5 TL and save $2K ? It will probably take less gas too as it is 2.5 (not 3.2).

If gas milage is a concern, get an EL 1.6/1.7
Those cars are Awesome on gas.

bahasad wrote: ↑I personally like the 3.2TL. Beware of transmission problems, and make sure you ask about if it has been replaced, or drive it around to see. Almost every single Honda from 1998-2006 has had transmission problems, but we have a 2004 TL and a 2005 Pilot, and luckily they are all good (so far). I wouldn't get the 2.5TL just because of uncertainty of parts and reliability (not sure if it would be easy to get parts/hands on the I-5 in that car).

TBH, I would rather go for the 1.6/1.7EL...unless you really need the extra space.

So: 3.2TL>=1.6EL/1.7EL> 2.5TL

Thanks for the advice. How do I check if the transmission is ok or has been replaced?

Sorry, what is "I-5" ?

MP3_SKY wrote: ↑If gas milage is a concern, get an EL 1.6/1.7
Those cars are Awesome on gas.

Yes, agree, EL Premium looks pretty good. But the TL is nicer and roomier. And if I drive to US, people won't think I put the Acura logo on the Civic

rdx wrote: ↑I am thinking to buy a used car mainly for the purpose to commute to go station and park there. Basically, looking for a cheap but reliable car.

I am wondering if I should get 1998 Acura TL 2.5 or 2000 Acura 3.2, provided their mileages are pretty much the same (about 200K-250K range). One is older model which is about $2,000 cheaper. Exterior looks pretty much the same (not as dramatic change as the 2004 TL which I like the most but over my budget :P )

I was actually thinking to get EL but I see its price is almost the same or higher than TL for the same year. So, decided to spend the same money for the higher model :P I know it will take more gas but I won't drive a lot with it anyway.

What do you guys think? I heard TL has transmission issue, not sure if it applies to both models.

I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions

I've got a '96 2.5 TL, you should get one too

I was told by dealer and others this generation (96 thru 98) have solid trannies, apparently they were made by Volvo. I've never had a problem.

I'm almost at 300,000Km and overall I've been very happy with this car. It's a very comfortable drive and has enough room for my family. Though the trunk is awfully small and there isn't much room in the back for adults. The car's size is deceiving.

I bought mine over nine years. Components replaced include Rad, Computer Module at $0 (over 6 years ago and looking back I believe that was an excuse for dealer to use warranty - next time I'll get a second opinion), Tires, Timing Belt, and Brakes. So nearly everything most other Asian cars do over the first five years. One annoying habit is the check engine light, only once have a I had a real issue with the car when the light came on, otherwise it was related to something that quick went away... for example driving east on 403 between Erin Mills and Mavis, when I'm climbing the hill if I have cruise on this light has been known to come on. Waited a day or two and it resolved itself. Odd - but true, so now I don't put the cruise on that hill climb.

There are a couple TL web sites out there you might want to review, they'll give you more insight into issues we've all encountered. http://acura-tl.com

The only reason I continue to drive is not much goes wrong with it and I put a trailer hitch on it. Aftermarket hitch was like $400+, cheaper than buying a truck

^ good advice. I-5 means inline 5 - the car is a 5 cylinder engine, and that isn't really common. I can count on one hand the car's that I know have a 5 cylinder engine.

As for transmission, drive the car around. Be wary of sudden jerks and grinding and stuff. Also, always ask when it comes to Hondas. "Has the transmission been replaced, was/is there anything wrong with it? I heard there are some problems with these auto transmissions...are there any problems with this particular one? Has it been fixed" <- Those are some of the questions I would ask. If it is financially possible, get a mechanic to check it out.

Thanks for the info. Do you put premium gas in it? Or 87 is fine?

wlessard wrote: ↑I've got a '96 2.5 TL, you should get one too

I was told by dealer and others this generation (96 thru 98) have solid trannies, apparently they were made by Volvo. I've never had a problem.

I'm almost at 300,000Km and overall I've been very happy with this car. It's a very comfortable drive and has enough room for my family. Though the trunk is awfully small and there isn't much room in the back for adults. The car's size is deceiving.

I bought mine over nine years. Components replaced include Rad, Computer Module at $0 (over 6 years ago and looking back I believe that was an excuse for dealer to use warranty - next time I'll get a second opinion), Tires, Timing Belt, and Brakes. So nearly everything most other Asian cars do over the first five years. One annoying habit is the check engine light, only once have a I had a real issue with the car when the light came on, otherwise it was related to something that quick went away... for example driving east on 403 between Erin Mills and Mavis, when I'm climbing the hill if I have cruise on this light has been known to come on. Waited a day or two and it resolved itself. Odd - but true, so now I don't put the cruise on that hill climb.

There are a couple TL web sites out there you might want to review, they'll give you more insight into issues we've all encountered. http://acura-tl.com

The only reason I continue to drive is not much goes wrong with it and I put a trailer hitch on it. Aftermarket hitch was like $400+, cheaper than buying a truck

on the 2.5TL and 1.6el, reg fuel is what it says on the manuel and gas cap.
The 3.2TL says premium fuel recommended. Regular pump is ok. Afterall it only produced about 225 bhp at the time, not like the newer cars with 270-300 bhp cars like TL, g35/g37s.

The 2.5 is slow as molasses, the 3.2 is quick but when your transmission needs rebuilding/replacing, it ain't so much fun anymore. If I had to pick one it would be the 3.2L though.

Car should be able to handle 87 octane no problem, but it will almost certainly drop a bit of performance and you may also lose fuel economy. Though I would have no problems doing it on a regular 3.2 TL, I would recommend against using 87 in the Type-S. Though it too will probably not get harmed by 87, that's just a waste of buying a Type-S IMO.