When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yea? I still havent done any driving on the 275s, only the 255s. Its not that wide, and im also manual which makes repeating much harder. Also, im putting down a more power to the wheels. Its not a comparison, The simple fact is, is that to many try to say it cant because its FWD. Sure it has limitations, but what we are talking about here isnt one of them like some seem to think
20 years ago people said FWD would never break 10s they have broken into the 7s and over 200mph
The widest OEM tire size is 215/50/17 for the 2G TL-S.
So your 255 width is already up by +4.
Wide tires are essential to effectively put your car's power to the ground for the much reduced acceleration times; whereas OEM sized tire (215/50/17) will just spin helplessly if the traction control is turned off, or hardly rolling at all if the traction control is cutting power double time.
The widest OEM tire size is 215/50/17 for the 2G TL-S.
So your 255 width is already up by +4.
Wide tires are essential to effectively put your car's power to the ground for the much reduced acceleration times; whereas OEM sized tire (215/50/17) will just spin helplessly if the traction control is turned off, or hardly rolling at all if the traction control is cutting power double time.
Im actually faster with my 215/55/16 snow tires than i am with my 18s. Weight! A quality summer tire and the TL-S would have a very hard time spinning them in stock size
And none of this comparing my car/situation has anything to do with the TLX getting into the 5s for 0-60s
The discussion isn't that a FWD car can't, it's that this particular FWD car won't.
The FWD 3.5l TLX has 290 crank hp, weighs anywhere from 3,585lbs to 3,620lbs, runs on 225/50-18s and does not have a limited slip differential.
That's less power, a smaller contact patch, and about 200lbs heavier then your TL. It's entirely possible for a FWD car to hit 60 in low 5s or even high 4s. But an entry level luxury car off the showroom floor, especially one with a beak, will be hard pressed to do that.
Can we get back to arguing over ground clearance and superior side view mirror design?
Actually it is.
Originally Posted by iforyou
FWD is the issue...lol...
Personally there is no reason it shouldnt get into the 5s. It has an Automatic, 9 closely spaced gears, and why or while we are comparing it to my car, it isnt any heavier than my TL with everything i have in it.
Id love to get back to talking about ground clearance.
Personally there is no reason it shouldnt get into the 5s. It has an Automatic, 9 closely spaced gears, and why or while we are comparing it to my car, it isnt any heavier than my TL with everything i have in it.
I have no doubt it'll be faster then 6 seconds to 60, but I don't foresee it in the low 5 second range. 5.7 is what I'm thinking, with the AWD model hitting it in 5.1. Those are still respectable numbers for this type of car.
My TL is FWD and has no issues pulling those type of numbers
With modern tech (traction control/launch control etc..) and the 9 speed auto it shouldnt be that hard to do and the excuse of FWD should be used far less (if in fact it had the power or were capable of).
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Mine, yes (unless of course you are stupid and just dump the clutch with it wot)
I didnt say it did have Launch control. I guess i should have clarified that. I was saying in general with modern tech, using the "Its FWD" as an excuse should really be used far less than it is. I mean we are talking about a street car, not a top fuel drag car. What does Auto have anything to do with it? Autos are faster now days than manuals It wont do 4s because its not making enough HP. Mid to low 5s? Should be, Based on specs it should, will it??? And Yes, the crap tastic (and that is being generous) tires will be the main reason it cant.
Originally Posted by RPhilMan1
It can pull those numbers but can it properly put the power to the ground?
The TLX doesn't have launch control and is auto tranny. iforyou has a point.
The way it is set up, it won't do 4s in 0-60.
Especially with the stock tires.
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Yea? I still havent done any driving on the 275s, only the 255s. Its not that wide, and im also manual which makes repeating much harder. Also, im putting down a more power to the wheels. Its not a comparison, The simple fact is, is that to many try to say it cant because its FWD. Sure it has limitations, but what we are talking about here isnt one of them like some seem to think
20 years ago people said FWD would never break 10s they have broken into the 7s and over 200mph
Originally Posted by civicdrivr
The discussion isn't that a FWD car can't, it's that this particular FWD car won't.
The FWD 3.5l TLX has 290 crank hp, weighs anywhere from 3,585lbs to 3,620lbs, runs on 225/50-18s and does not have a limited slip differential.
That's less power, a smaller contact patch, and about 200lbs heavier then your TL. It's entirely possible for a FWD car to hit 60 in low 5s or even high 4s. But an entry level luxury car off the showroom floor, especially one with a beak, will be hard pressed to do that.
Can we get back to arguing over ground clearance and superior side view mirror design?
ya, for sure there are FWD street cars that can do 0-60mph in 4's and 1/4 mile in low to mid 13's, like your TL. I guess I wasn't specific enough....as mentioned by civicdrivr, I just don't see the TLX FWD breaking into the 4's and 13's with its narrow and shxtty tires, 265whp, and 3600lb.
Originally Posted by civicdrivr
The 9G Accord V6 has been recorded with high 5s 0-60 times, so it's possible to get there. But I think the 4s range is definitely pushing it for the FWD model - hell, I think low 5s are pushing it. It's just too heavy to put that power down effectively without the aid of electronic nannies and sticky tires. I don't even see the AWD model hitting 4s.
Originally Posted by charliemike
A stock FWD Accord V6 is hitting 5.9 seconds to 60mph???
Originally Posted by civicdrivr
The 8G 6MT coupe has been timed at hitting 60 around 5.8-5.9. The 3G TL-S was ~5.8 to 60 as well.
I read somewhere that the 9G 6AT sedan was capable of 5.9 as well, but most of the times peg it at ~6.2. Car & Driver got 5.6 to 60 out of the 9G 6MT Coupe, but not sure how repeatable those numbers are. Keep in mind that the 6MT coupe weighs less then 3400lbs.
The question is that, can the more powerful TLX with 3 more gear ratios beat that, considering that the TLX is 60lb heavier?
the TLX made 265hp stock. with 251lbs of torque.
we have discovered that Acura has been refining the J-series engine ever since the 3G TL.
less moving parts AND weight loss by taking them apart and observing the changes.
the 3.7 liter is a unicorn since they have dropped it from the lineup.
this engine, with ALL its advancement only made 290-300hp at the crank.
what does this tell us?
Honda/Acura is de-tuning these engines.
As advancement progresses, less moving parts while losing weight will boost power.
a by product of this is reliability.
However, support has been dropped from the 3.7l because of oil consumption from the ringland.
and in comes their reliable 3.5l J35.
except, ive seen or heard of complaint of oil consumption with their new D/I 3.5
I own a J32, a 3.2 liter engine. which made 241hp at the wheels with exhaust mods.
the only time it's useful is when it's past 4k RPM....
time to innovate Honda...
Last edited by justnspace; 09-20-2014 at 04:22 PM.
ya, for sure there are FWD street cars that can do 0-60mph in 4's and 1/4 mile in low to mid 13's, like your TL. I guess I wasn't specific enough....as mentioned by civicdrivr, I just don't see the TLX FWD breaking into the 4's and 13's with its narrow and shxtty tires, 265whp, and 3600lb.
I own a J32, a 3.2 liter engine. which made 241hp at the wheels with exhaust mods.
the only time it's useful is when it's past 4k RPM....
time to innovate Honda...
I would say they have really helped the engine where they needed. Torque. There is far more available and useable than before. (mine probably has what yours has at peak before 4k and im thinking of adding 4 or so psi
we have discovered that Acura has been refining the J-series engine ever since the 3G TL.
less moving parts AND weight loss by taking them apart and observing the changes.
the 3.7 liter is a unicorn since they have dropped it from the lineup.
this engine, with ALL its advancement only made 290-300hp at the crank.
what does this tell us?
Honda/Acura is de-tuning these engines.
As advancement progresses, less moving parts while losing weight will boost power.
a by product of this is reliability.
However, support has been dropped from the 3.7l because of oil consumption from the ringland.
and in comes their reliable 3.5l J35.
except, ive seen or heard of complaint of oil consumption with their new D/I 3.5
I own a J32, a 3.2 liter engine. which made 241hp at the wheels with exhaust mods.
the only time it's useful is when it's past 4k RPM....
time to innovate Honda...
For sure.
While the official power figures haven't changed much, it seems like their engines are actually making more power than what Honda is claiming.
As oonowindoo was saying, we can't simply compare dynojet number to the official rating and conclude if an engine is underrated or not.
Take the 2009 Accord V6 6MT vs 2013 Accord V6 6MT as an example. Officially, the 2009 model was rated at 268hp/248lbft while the 2013 one is rated at 278hp/252lbft.
Of course the tests were conducted several years apart, with the 2009 test conducted in warmer condition. But the tests were both SAE corrected. For the 2009 model, it was corrected 5% higher. For the 2013 model, there was 0% correction as the test condition was close to SAE conditions.
And that sort of gains is reflected in the 1/4 mile ET's and trap speeds.
It might not look too impressive at first glance, as accord is only 5 whp/ 6 wtq better despite being 6 years new. But The TL-S is rated at 286hp running at a CR of 11:0 with premium gas while the Accord is rated at 278hp at 10:1 on regular fuel.
It might not look too impressive at first glance, as accord is only 5 whp/ 6 wtq better despite being 6 years new. But The TL-S is rated at 286hp running at a CR of 11:0 with premium gas while the Accord is rated at 278hp at 10:1 on regular fuel.
One caveat - the Accord was delivered to them with a full tank of unknown octane. Not that the difference between 87 and 91 is drastic in California, but it was worth mentioning.
Dynojet is pretty well known to overrate its numbers. But that does not matter because like i said earlier. Base line # is just that.. a number. It is not an accurate indication of how much the power is at the wheel.
The point of Dyno is for tuning and compare gains between mods, and even that has to be done on the same Dyno machine if you want some realistic and accurate information. Many people get so caught up with the #s, similar to people get so caught up with the 0-60#.
Both of them mean shit in the real world.
Same car on 3 different Dyno Machines.
The highest WHP is usually the Dynojet, then Dynapacks then there is the mustang Dyno, which usually reads the lowest.
So how can you tell which one is accurate? you can go to Dynojet and pull some crazy high #s and make yourself happy and brag about it. Or you can go do a Dyno on the Mustang machine and cry.
oh also i forgot to mention that.... the #s can always be played around by the operator. So coming from a Acura dealer trying to advertise and sell TLX... even if it were accurate, i would not believe it. Conflict of interest.
Last edited by oonowindoo; 09-22-2014 at 04:28 PM.
"As oonowindoo was saying, we can't simply compare dynojet number to the official rating and conclude if an engine is underrated or not."
This is why I said trap speed is important,
"And that sort of gains is reflected in the 1/4 mile ET's and trap speeds."
With the above said, some facts:
1.) TOV isn't exactly an Acura dealer
2.) The dyno used for all 3 cars are the same dynojet unit at the same location (Shawn Automotive)
3.) The numbers have been SAE corrected to minimize discrepancies from weather conditions
4.) The whole idea is to show that over time, the output of these engines tend to rise. It shows on the same dynojet, and it shows in real world performance testing, more specifically, the trap speed.
"As oonowindoo was saying, we can't simply compare dynojet number to the official rating and conclude if an engine is underrated or not."
This is why I said trap speed is important,
"And that sort of gains is reflected in the 1/4 mile ET's and trap speeds."
With the above said, some facts:
1.) TOV isn't exactly an Acura dealer
2.) The dyno used for all 3 cars are the same dynojet unit at the same location (Shawn Automotive)
3.) The numbers have been SAE corrected to minimize discrepancies from weather conditions
4.) The whole idea is to show that over time, the output of these engines tend to rise. It shows on the same dynojet, and it shows in real world performance testing, more specifically, the trap speed.
i know you said that. I just like to repeat myself.
Well, I had a chance to stop by my local Acura dealer to test drive a new TLX. The dealership was literally empty. Maybe it was just too hot today.
Anyway, overall it was just between meh and alright.
- Exterior
The exterior design MINUS the beak and wheels has certainly grown on me since the debut. The dealership didn't have a white one, but I have spotted a white one before in person. It looks very sleek from all angles. I liked it a lot. This black one was just alright.
But really.. Acura still left the god awful looking Beak in the forehead. I really don't get it. Does anyone really care for that Beak? Really boggles my mind that Acura designers, again, stuck with that terrifying front grille after all that negative reviews from 135073 car reviews. God I literally said YUK in front of the salesman when I first saw it. He said "yeah..... other customers notice that too." Yeah, you have to be blinded to not notice that thing in the front.
- Interior
It still is a typical Acura interior. Gave me a sort of 3G TL-ish feeling once I sat in the driver seat. It was really nice back in 2005 when I bought my 3G TL brand new off the lot, but nothing really special in 2014.
- Tech crap
I drove a loaded 2.4L version. It didn't really have much high tech toys to play with. It was just typical Acura package again.
Does the V6 trim have more techy stuff?
- Drivability (The car was on Sport+ mode)
The acceleration was between meh and alright. It definitely lacked a lot of juice for the size. Told the salesman that Acura should definitely add a small turbo on this model. He sounded clueless on the response. I just moved on and continued with my test-drive.
The 8-speed dual clutch transmission was great. It does smoothly move through the gears. The changes seem very effortless. Guess the adding the torque converter did its magic. It didn't feel jerky at all. Kudos to Honda for that technology. I was pretty impressed with the transmission.
The steering was very light. It was expected since it's a Japanese car. My BRZ with 9 inch wide wheel set up is pretty heavy in the steering. So is my wife's A4 Avant. The car did felt pretty light and had less body roll than I had expected. Felt pretty light footed. Just wish the steering was a little bit heavier. It just had that "cheap" feeling to it when you move through the corners.
----
I think if Acura can keep the price as is and add a small turbo, it should be a MUCH better package. It definitely looks and feels much better than the previous Beakmobile, but not sure if it's enough to bring back the old Acura swag back. Certainly moving in the right direction though.
Well - if you started a thread called "Nude Kate Upton" I think you would generate a lot of hits but most everyone would probably agree it's not important to see nude pics of her.
I submit 0 to 60 times are to car enthusiasts what nude Kate Upton pics are to, well, heterosexual woman enthusiasts...
I loved the repeated attempts to get Bear-AV to "prove" people were "wound up." Uhhh, the very angst demonstrated in that process made the whole notion self-evident.
09-19-2014, 01:56 PM
and im thinking of adding 4 or so psi 
this literally got me rolling
