pvmike1

You know, that profile does look decent. I just can't get past the front and rear.

I must be a brother from another mother.

MSMLexIS

I was wrong what i meant to say was that the front of th FWD and the FWD has the better looking exhaust tips. The AWD though does offer the sweet Black/Umber interior.

FKL

You sort of prove a point in itself here - The Acura 2009 TL is inferior, powertrain wise, to a Passat that has been on the market since 2005.5. The directly injected, 3.6L narrow angle DOHC V6 has been used in the VW for about four years how, and Honda still can't honestly compete with it. Look at the torque ratings - the VR6 has all 265lb-ft of torque at only 2,750rpms, where as the TL, with it's no pull down low architecture, delivers it's 273lb-ft at nearly 5,000rpm. This makes for a much different driving experience in everyday driving, and I can tell you that the Passat 3.6 pulls the car hard from a stop.

Now as far as your 0-60 point goes, the difference is slight at best...that review found the CC to make the sprint in 6.1 seconds, a marginal .2 second spread. Not to mention, most other reviews of the 3.6 VR6 over the last four years, whether in the regular Passat or the CC, usually show around a 5.8-6.0 second sprint to 60mph. When the Passat/CC is coupled with the 6-speed dual clutch DSG transmission, stupidly a European only offering, the Passat and Passat CC can do the 60mph sprint in about 5.4 seconds, faster than even the 3.2 V6 Audi A4. The DSGs launch control help with this a lot. Of course, the TL doesn't even have a 6speed automatic (available on even a lowly Jetta/Golf), and has nothing like the DSG transmission that is found on the European spec cars. The Passat CC, IMO, competes very favorably with the 2009 TL. It's definitely not as sharp around the edges, but it is far more refined. It also has the added plus of looking a whole lot better. We all know the TL is a guised up Accord, in the same vein the CC is a guised up Passat. The difference is, the Passat has always felt like a $40,000 car, something the Accord could never pull off.

dunnojack

that's not gold

that's dookie brown

P Weezy

iTrader: (1)

...hahaha

This car is just alllll wrong. No matter what color.

GQD_GS4

looks good from the side, but the rear end looks like a smiley face.

felixsc300

iTrader: (5)

Um, I like it. *runs to take cover*

nabbun

it's not the worst looking car in the world.

I'd never buy it. But I'd drive it like I stole it to check out the SH-AWD and see how it handles lol

IS350jet

Here we go again! Blah, blah, blah, Volkswagen. Blah, blah, blah, Volkswagen. Will it ever stop?

The fact is, the TL has more power, more torque, and is faster. I'd love to see a 280HP VW sedan rip off 5.4 to 60. Not gonna happen. The TL, IMO, is superior to the Passat/CC in every way. It's more expensive because it's a higher line automobile, and it shows. The CC has only one thing going for it; It's far better looking than the TL. BTW, the $29K EX-L V6 Accord drives shockingly close to a $40K car, just ask Honda hater, 1SICKLEX. He once said, the new Accord is so good, he can't figure out why Acura even exists.

The G Man

I actually like the Accord V6 better than the TL, but both cars are inferior to the VW CC and the A4 3.2L. Acura just puts up numbers, they cannot perform in the real world.

IS-SV

Exception being reliability/dependability. CC and A4 are not especially quick cars either when compared to others in this segment.

IS-SV

Yep. The color isn't the solution.

in5ane_3

I truly despise all of Acura's newly designed vehicles. A little too modern for my tastes.

The G Man

The Camry or the Corolla is more reliable than all of the above

IS-SV

Yes for sure but the difference is academic. Most consumers know Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura cars as having excellent reliability.