After a strong start back in the late 80s, Acura threatened to fade into obscurity with the appearance of Lexus and the resurgence of the German luxury brands. Acuras decision to junk real model names in favor of two-letter designations didnt help. But now theyve found a new formula, and it seems to be working for them. Like the successful 1999 redesign of the TL, with which it shared a Honda Accord-based chassis, the 2001 CL Type S came standard with everything except a navigation system (even a Bose sound system with a six-disk in-dash CD changer!). Yet it was also priced far less than the European competition at just over $30,000.  
 
Nothing significant has changed for 2002. The most notable standard feature is a 3.2 liter six the produces 260 horsepower at a high but still accessible 6100 RPM. This is 35 more than the 225 of the standard CL and of the new 3.0 liter in the roughly $10,000 more expensive BMW 330Ci. Only one transmission is available: a five speed automatic. Perhaps in an attempt to placate those who might wonder where the manual is, this automatic comes even in the regular CL with a sequential sportshift, which supposedly offers the feel and control of a manual without the bother of a clutch.  
 
Update: For 2003 a manual is finally available in the CL-S. I have driven this car, and posted a review of it under the listing for the 2003 CL-S here: http://www.epinions.com/content_72728153732  
 
So the CL Type S poses as a serious yet much less expensive challenger to the BMW 330Ci. Does it really measure up? To find out, I took one for a drive.  
 
Styling  
 
The more serious mission of the second-generation CL is evident in its styling. The first CL was attractive, even pretty. Its tall, airy greenhouse (window area) and artfully tapered rear end gave it a unique appearance (except from the front, which had a generic Honda look to it). But the styling of the first CL did not exude substance and luxury. Its styling connoted playfulness, lightness, and perhaps agility. Yet, despite some of the flavor of the late BMW 6-series, it didn't have the look of a serious luxury car.  
 
Acura has fixed this with the new car. Though roughly the same sizethe largest dimensional change is a two inch increase in lengththe new car appears much larger. This is largely the result of shrinking the greenhouse and bulking up the body. These looks are not entirely deceiving. Though similar in size, the new car is about 500 lbs. heavier. These changes come with a cost: the new styling is not as distinctive. What designers refer to as the DLO (for daylight opening, the side window outline) is strikingly similar to the last Nissan 240SX, which failed to stand out against other coupes and failed in the marketplace. Where the old DLO curved up quite a bit towards the rear, the new one curves subtly down. The rear end of the car is no longer strongly tapered. It now looks much like that of many other cars. I personally lament these styling changes. But I must admit they make grant the new CL a much more substantial, more serious, considerably more luxurious appearance.  
 
To hammer this message home the CL Type S rides on 17 wheels with a strong five-spoke design. No multitude of frilly thin spokes or cross-mesh design here. On the inside the serious performance message is conveyed by perforated leather, metallic gray gauge faces, and, with the ebony interior, black wood. (The parchment interior comes with the brown wood of the standard CL.) The last, similar in appearance to that found in high performance Jags and Mercedes, covers large portions of the door panels and center console. If you want still more of it, the dealer can add a piece around the instruments. How can Acura afford such extravagance in a $30,000 automobile? Easy: unlike that in the European brands this wood is plastic. The tan interior come with more traditional-looking wood that is a bit orange for my tastes, but it seems to work for many people. Especially those who dislike the trendier gray variety.  
 
Accommodations  
 
I actually prefer the interior to that in the BMW in many ways. Because the cowl is low in the traditional Honda fashion and the cockpit is a couple of inches wider, the CLs interior manages to feel more open than the BMWs while still feeling driver-oriented. The view forward is especially nice, with the steering wheel well below even a short drivers field of vision. Ive never warmed to the extremely high position of the wheel and instruments in BMWs. I like to see the instruments, but I mostly want to see OUT. Though the side windows are much shorter than in the old CL, the beltline is not uncomfortably high, about on par with the BMW.  
 
The front seats not only look impressive but are very comfortable and hold you in place very well due to their large bolsters. They are slightly softer than the traditionally hard (though still comfortable) seats in the BMW. My only complaint about the driving position is that the steering wheel feels a bit close. Since another reviewer felt it was too far away, it seems a telescoping wheel is in order.  
 
Though the Acura is over a foot longer and a few hundred pounds heavier than the BMW, and simply feels like a significantly larger car, it is similarly tight in the rear seat. Though Im only 59, I barely fit in the rear seat behind a similarly sized driver. My hair brushed the rear glass. Apparently the extra length and weight went towards the flowing exterior lines rather than the interior. At least it is easy to get into the rear seats compared to other coupes. Lift the handle on the side of either seat, and it glides forward. Tilt the seat back, and it automatically returns to its previous position. The CL does not pretend to seat five: the center of the rear seat is occupied by a storage console.  
 
The major problem with the rear seat is that it does not fold downthere is only a pass-through behind the armrest. The BMW does offer this feature. I personally would not want a car without it unless I planned never to use it to carry moderately large objects. In both of the cars I own the rear seat folds down, and Ive used this feature many times to carry large objects such as book cases and cribs.  
 
On the Road  
 
The Type Ss throttle is tuned to make the car jump the moment you tip into the throttle. This is both good and bad. It conveys the capabilities of the car. But it also makes a smooth, subtle launch difficult. Your passengers might think you're having trouble growing up. Then again, this might be the image you are after.  
 
Give it gas, and the engine immediately responds. Unlike some high performance engine variants, that in the Type S is not just a high RPM wonder than offers few benefits over the standard CL engine in regular driving. This engine doesnt only make 35 more horsepower on the high end, 500 RPM further up the tach. It also has a higher, flatter torque curve through the mid-range, so it will feel stronger even in relaxed driving. The torque peak is 16 lbs.-ft. higher, and is reached 1200 RPM sooner. This paradox is made possible by a sophisticated two-stage manifold not found in the standard CL. As a further bonus, the Type S engine earned the same EPA numbers as the 225 horsepower one: 19/29. Honda certainly has a way with engines.  
 
I should add that the engine also makes nice sounds. When pushed, it does not attempt to be silent. Fortunately, the mellow growl at high RPM connotes refined power. I personally prefer the slightly more throaty, more mechanical, sportier voice of the BMW 3 liter, but this engine sounds more luxurious. Anyone interested in this type of car will rev the engine from time to time just to hear it burble.  
 
I really wish a manual transmission were available in this car. That (and a hand-operating parking brake) would solidify its claim to be a serious contender among performance coupes. It would also make the car more fun to drive, at least for me. The "sportshift" was easy to use: just slide the lever into a short slot to the left of "D," and then push forward to upshift and pull backward to downshift. This allows you to quickly and easily control which gear you are in. But, at least for me, nothing can replace the responsiveness and "at one with the car" feeling you get from a good clutch and manual shifter.  
 
As I've already mentioned, this wish has now been granted. In my review of the 2003 I describe the happy results.  
 
The key challenge faced by Hondas engineers was surely how to manage 260 horsepower through the front wheels. The key difference between this car and the BMW is that this car, due to its Accord roots, is front-wheel-drive. Generally, channeling a great deal of power through the front wheels results in torque steer: the car pulls to one side during hard acceleration. Remarkably for such a powerful front driver, torque steer is all but absent. Under hard acceleration the steering acquired an additional degree of stiffness (partly an artifact of the way the variable assist is set up), but it did not tug to one side or the other. Many other car companies should study this car to figure out how this was done.  
 
On the whole, handling was also impressive for a front-driver, or a rear-driver for that matter. Though weight distribution is far from even, understeer in hard turns is moderate (though always present). The nicely-tuned suspension, despite tires with only a 215 mm cross-section, sticks very well. I drove this car hard along a curvy road, yet felt well within the limits of the car. The front-drive layout, not matter how well it is tuned, simply does not allow the kind of power-on oversteer that can readily be had in the BMW. Otherwise this is a fine chassis. Not quite as tossable, but very stable and enjoyable enough for most drivers. The overall feeling is simply of a larger, more luxurious car. I felt more cosseted than connected. For those who really like to make a car dance, and I am among these, Id still recommend finding the additional cash for the BMW. But most people shopping these cars will find the Acuras chassis more than sufficient for how they typically drive.  
 
I do not think most luxury coupe buyers will be troubled by the major fault I had with the car: its steering. When the car is driven in a relaxed manner, the steering feels pretty good, with a desirable amount of heft (if not exactly road feel) once the car exceeds parking lot speeds. But when the car is driven in a spirited manner, steering feel jumps all over the map, going heavy, then light, then suddenly heavy again, sometimes within the span of a few seconds. While this poses no safety issues, it detracts from the feel of the road desired from the steering of a drivers car.  
 
Over most surfaces the CL Type-S rides quite well, especially considering the capabilities of its chassis. The only exception I noticed was some jitteriness over slightly imperfect surfaces. Ive noticed this characteristic in some other cars with low-profile tires. I personally feel this is an unnecessary trade-off to make to get that final bit of steering response. The BMW 3s Ive driven rode better, even with the Sport Package.  
 
I suspect the standard CL would not have this problem. I have not driven the standard CL, so I can only guess at how it compares. The extra power of the Type S sounds nice, 260 is a big number, but may not make such a large difference in actual driving. The same goes for the stiffer suspension and larger wheels of the Type S. Are the engine, suspension, and interior trim differences of the Type S worth the extra $2,350? I urge potential buyers to drive both CLs and make this judgement for themselves.  
 
Last Words  
 
In the end I was impressed by the CL Type S, but not in love with it. Its a matter of personal preference. If you want a luxurious, fully loaded coupe with a lot of power and above-average handling for about $30k, then this is probably your best choice. It certainly appeals to me more than the Toyota Solara, its closest competitor in terms of features and price, or even some more expensive coupes such as the Volvo C70. This is a lot of coupe for the money, and it has a number of strengths. But if you want the most enjoyable coupe to drive, with other factors being secondary, the BMW, even the less powerful 325Ci, remains a better choice due to its superior steering and handling. Especially if your definition of an enjoyable coupe includes a manual transmission and a tossable chassis.  
