reddSC400

I currently have a 1992 SC400 with 150K miles on it with all the add-ons, premium wheels, etc., but a/c is broken (cracked), some visible dings and scratches on exterior and interior as well. Work was already done to radiator and already replaced alternator and timing belt. I have a chance to get a 1997 Acura CL 2.2 with 114K miles, but no problems from original owner for way below market value (family friend).

I'm reluctant to let go of my SC400, but am wondering if it's time to spring on this deal because of the Acura's less mileage and 5 years newer. Which car would be more reliable for the next few years? What problems start popping up on the SC400 after 150K? How much longer do the SC's usually last? How much of a downgrade would it be to if I switched cars? Does anyone know how these CL's hold up?

Any help I could get would be great.

plex

iTrader: (11)

I didn't like that body style CL, I wasn't feeling the rear end and it was too much like the accord. But if it's below blue book go for it.

3rdelement

iTrader: (1)

also make sure to budget in a few dollars for bulb and display replacements. from my experience with the acuras they have a bad habit of problems with those at that mileage

LexFather

Its a night and day difference in downgrade. The 2.2 CL is the first Acura built and designed in AMerica. It has a I-4 with 145 hp. Just think your SC engine is twice as large pretty much.

The CL is based on the Accord and well drives like an Accord, spirtied and spunky. This model doesn't have the tranny issues of the newer CL and I havent hearn much if any reliability issues.

The SC was built to be a world beater, the difference is obvious when u open and close the doors on both cars.

If the CL had under 100k miles, I would consider it. But it already has 114k, which is not much less htan your 150k, so I say stick with the SC.

Nerpie

Definate downgrade from SC400 to a CL 2.2. I have a SC400 right now and my girlfriend has a CL. I've driven her car mostly before I got my SC400 because my car was crap. Anyway, the first thing you'll notice is the lack of torque. The car just feels so damn slow. IMO. I would not do it.

The CL has less power, less looks, less/same luxury. Not worth it.

legendary

My unbiased opinion leans to this.

My younger brother had a 1998 3.0CL and it was night and day difference. I let him drive my SC400 and he was like . Now, I know its not 600lbs ft, but it is night and day. FWIW, the engines in these cars, if well maintained are pretty much bulletproof. You have at LEAST 150k more in that motor. And that is if you dog it out.

lxsc400

Sc400 All The Wayyyyyyyy

hellasboy

i'll try not to be biased here...
I would stick with the SC400. IMHO, the CL is and ugly car. Anyways, here's a list I came up

-Getting rid of the SC for a CL-
Pros
Better fuel consumption
40k less miles

Negatives
Looks ugly
Less power
Less luxury

Not sure about
reliability of CL after 115k miles (SC is still reliable, maybe have to refurbish the transmission around 300k, suspension around 225k, motor and transmission mounts)
Resale value (in a few years, I think the resale value will be the same between the two, if it isn't already now)

Jonathan o

If you can afford to keep the SC and get the CL you can do that. But letting go of the SC for a CL that is wrong. Keep the SC if you dont you will kick your-self.