cusdaddy

Questionable... The article didn't seem to show the BMW was much better performing. I think that with stickier tires the CL could *gasp* outperform the BMW in handling... Definitely in accelaration

Crazy Bimmer

I really hope you arent talking stock vs stock... there is no way the stock CLS with just sticker tires, can handle as well as a stock bmw.

Go drive both. And drive them hard, then let me know. :P

Ashburner

With $7,000 in mods it could :P Plus, you would still have Navi and Xenon headlights

So, why don't they compare it to the 325Ci???

-Ash

Maximized

How come no one understands that skidpad is a very irrelevant statistic. All it measures is the tires grip. If you wanna see how well a car handles, look at the slalom #'s. This show how well the suspension can handle transitional movement. The CL-S was 3.4 mph slower in the slalom if I remember correctly. Thats a HUGE difference and thus shows how the 330i outperforms the CL-S.

cusdaddy

Did you read the C&D article? The CL had greater grip at the skidpad and fairly close handling performance. Why can't a stock CLS handle better than a Bimmer? It produces less body roll... Is a similar weight/size. It has terrible tires. Simple as that.

Check out this quote: "Although the Bimmer hooks up with crablike resolve in the corners, it produces considerably more body roll than the Acura..." Also about the CL: "the test track revealed #'s that can only be related to a simple lack of rubber" - If the CL kept fairly close to the BMW in handling with the crappy stock tires, let's see how grippy tires like the BMW help....

And yes.. I HAVE driven a 330 and a 325 and they do feel more balanced but the difference was not NEARLY as dramatic as you all make it out to be. It's just the RWD vs. FWD issue that makes a bigger difference

Maximized

Just because its written in magazine doesnt mean its true. Many times the numbers are way off. For example C&D got 14.6 for the 1/4 time, but somone on here posted a 14.3. I know for a fact that the 330i with the sport suspension has far less body roll than a 2002 CL-S. I have driven them both and know that the 330i has a major advantage in the handling department. If the CL-S handles just as well, why does it trail the 330Ci by 3.4 mph in the slalom? The answer is not tires, BTW

Crazy Bimmer

yea i read, blah blah. Would you beileve when those magazines say the TLS is faster than the CLS? Ok then, why does everyone here get soo worked up over magazines. Let it rest already. Go drive both cars for yourself. If you like the bmw better, then more power to ya. If ya like the CLS better then you made a great purchase. i just think everyone should stop reading and do more driving.

TypeSKid

Yup, all I know is that I won't be losing to a 330CI.

The day a modded one takes me, ah shit nevermind, I'll prolly have my evo by then.

Maximized

I concur...Also, I think that many people need their butt dyno's/accelerometer's balanced.

cakennedy

Come out to PIR or Firebird road courses, I guarantee I'll beat your modified CL-S with my stock (except wheels/tires) 330ci. Any takers?

How you doin, TypeSKid?

cusdaddy

Guarantee??? That's a VERY strong statement. I am sure a HIGHLY modified CLS 6-speed would be able to take your car on a road course.

I agree it would cost a lot, but it can be done. Almost anything on the road can be made fast with enough $$

You don't drive an M3. You drive a 330ci

cakennedy

Yes, but I'm pretty confident in my car, and I know those courses VERY well. I could probably take a Z06 on his first lap if he hadn't driven the course before

Notice I'm not offering to beat a CL-S on any course...

JRock

No it wasn't, and that's why we're replying.

Whether or not the BMW is worth $7-12k more to load it out equivalently has nothing to do with the fact that they only gave the CLS a ONE POINT edge in the Value category. It is logically impossible to justify $7-12k+ more in options as being only one point of difference when THE CAR ONLY COSTS ~$32k (IOW, about a quarter of the total price of the car added on top of it for options is surely a significant amount) and when you have 3 points difference in style and we LOSE in Driver Comfort and Features and Amenities. How the fuck does a car that comes with almost everything standard LOSE in Features and Amenities to a car where everything is optional and it doesn't even offer NAVI?!

I love BMWs. I'm a member over at DTMPower. I go to their meets. I was at an autocross on Sunday where there were a lot of BMWs and I even got to ride shotgun in an E36 M3 while it autox'ed. They are great cars, no doubt, and I'm fine with C&D sitting there and saying "okay we're going to make the BMW win because we like them better" (as they have for years) but C&D made their mistake when they put up comparison category numbers that are so blatantly skewed.

To expect us not to reply is ridiculous.

JRock

Where's PIR? Poconos?

I'm pretty sure once I stick some Z-rated tires on my car, it will fuck your shit up in the handling department - for example an autocross (well maybe not with ME driving it but still...).

Then again it is an automatic so maybe if I had my mods on a 6speed.

edit - oh wait, just on a course you know by heart, not on ANY course.

utexas112

I looked into the 330Ci before i looked into the CL-S. I must say, after having test-driven both extensively the cars both handle VERY well and are fairly quick. Seat of the pants feeling definitely goes to the cl-s.

When slammed into corners both stick to the road and feel like they have almost no body roll.

Anyway, when was the last time you did a slalom test while cruising down i-35...

BigPimp

Consumer is the ultimate judge of any product and the consumer votes with their wallets. So far, its seems that the 'better' product according to the consumer is the 330 as they sell much better than the CLS. If someone likes to disagree with that assessment, please post sales figures for the bimmer as the numbers for the CLS were posted and they are dismal to say the least.

JRock

If volume of sales is what denotes a better car then the Supra, which priced itself right out of the market back in 97/98, would be a terrible car (using your logic) because it didn't sell well and in fact did so poorly in sales they took it out of the market. I defy you to say the Supra isn't a great sports car just because it didn't sell enough and ended up being taken out of the US market.

jimcol711

car and driver has to be the most biased mag in the industry, they suck BMW perverbial dick in every issue...i wont even waste my time with that mag

hotboy911

i personall thought the article was very good and not biased. I don think the Acura should have won for the simple fact that it's a better value. But come on fellow cl lovers, the bimmer is simply a better car any way youlook at it. It looks better performs better and has a better engine. Acura is trying to get to wear bmw is and it might not ever get there. BMW is known for performance cars that look great and the 330ci looks great. I look at a grey one on the way to the buss every day and i wanna cream my pants every time i see it, so you cant say it don't look good. Plus acura shot there own selfs in the foot when they made the exterior changes the now 03, like the rims and chrome trim they took off plus no fog lights looks terrible. I do agree that the magazine wanted bmw to win but i should have, plus they got the worse color of the acura's. By the way i'm buying a red type S in january.
and that my 2 cent's

hotboy out

mhpellerin

The seats in the BMW have more room and offer more support thant the CL seats. I don't like the way the CL squeezes me in the back and bottom. The BMW seats gives you just enough room to be comfy without feeling sueezed and crammed into the seat. I'm 5"9" and 154 lbs.

dacura

iTrader: (1)

"So far, its seems that the 'better' product according to the consumer is the 330 as they sell much better than the CLS. "

Are we talking about the 330 or the 330ci or the 300 as a line of cars ? Please clarify. I don't have numbers but I'm not sure whether there are more 330 coupes than the CL-S at least in my area. If you're talking about the 330, then let's use the TLS + CLS numbers.

"I'm fine with C&D sitting there and saying "okay we're going to make the BMW win because we like them better" (as they have for years) but C&D made their mistake when they put up comparison category numbers that are so blatantly skewed."

Agree, to be they played around with the numbers to fit their preference. I think it's ok for them to express their preference but don't have to try to hide it behind the numbers.

codehead

I'm 6ft, 190 lbs. Maybe somehow my butt's smaller

hehe, oh well... I love the Acura seats--it's certainly just a personal preference thing. I did drive the BMW before buying the CL, and don't have any complaints about the seats there, but didn't prefer them to the Acura seats. I'm sure I would have been happy with them as well, but every time I get in my CL, I enjoy the way the seats fit like they were made for me. Not saying everyone should like them of course--I guess I rather be lucky and love the seats of the car I own than for them to make everyone else happy.

mhpellerin

The seat looks very small. When just about any man sits it the seat it not only feels tight but it looks small and cramped. If the car is a sporty luxury coupe the seat should not look or feel claustrophonic. The seat only looks normal for petite women (100 lb people). I don't know why they didn't design it for a man's body.

I hope they improve in this area by:

Lenthening the seat bottom for more lower thigh support.
Making both the bottom and back wider and flatter.
Doing away with those odd geometric shapes on the bottom.
Make the bolsters smaller allowing more freedom of movement.

The A6 and 3 series sport seats are much better.
I may go for a used A6 next time for more comfort, room and the folding rear seats.

tuleman

I say Kudos to BMW. They managed to CATCH UP with Acura for a mere $7000.00 more, 35hp less, and a few less options. All that for 1 point.
With a price tag of 42K for the Bimmer there are a few other cars I would look at getting first.

Closer

Hmmm CL-S...
Handling: 9... that seems a bit high. I would give it an 8 at best. It definately had lean problems and needs better tires.
Features: 9... I say 8. well now that the butt warmers are only on/off and the passenger seat still doesn't have the same adjusts as driver is kinda lame. And we still need one touch buttons and a back track on the steering wheel stereo controls.
Fit and Finish: 9... 8. are they serious? That cup holder cover should be (-1) point... and I still highly doubt they fixed all the rattles.
Value: 9... Obviously this should be a 10.

Overall though... I'm happy that it was even close. The 330 is a great car... and in my opinion still the benchmark for mid level sport sedans and coupes.

soopa

man.... youve really got it in for these seats!

a look through your 22 post history: http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/searc...searchid=53431


damn near every topic is about how awful you feel the seats are

nonetheless, good to see yet another person from Albany on here.

cakennedy

Not to drag this out any further, but...."catch up"? I think you have it backwards. BMW invented the sports sedan category 30 years ago and have dominated it ever since. Acura should be congratulated for almost "catching up" to BMW, at a price thousands less than a 330ci.

And here's another way of looking at price: sure, you could pay $42,000 for a 330ci, but you'd be very foolish to do so. By choosing the options carefully, and taking advantage of some unique BMW programs, the price difference becomes much less.

For example: let's say you take european delivery of a 2002 330ci, with sport package and premium package, and you're a BMWCCA member. MSRP for this car is $36095, and you'd probably be able to easily knock $1000 off in negotiating, so now your new 330ci is $35,000, and you get a trip to Europe (er, paid for by you, of course).

An odd example, but it's possible to get the price of the 330 much lower than the crazy $42,000 figure everyone is throwing around.

tuleman

Uum.. yea.... thanks for clearing that up for us.

cakennedy

No problem

Or if you don't take advantage of the special BMW programs, an '02 330ci with sport and premium pkgs stickers at $39,135. Again, by choosing your options carefully, it's not a $42,000 car.

cnatra

So it's only $7k

Tom2

So tell us which ones.....

I'm curious.

cusdaddy

Myself personally:

G35 Coupe
350z
Older S4 is still available
A6 2.7T manual
2003 Mustang Cobra (I know it's a Mustang, but it's still 390hp)

...to name a few....

JRock

Maybe your fat ass should just lose some weight. :P

Seriously though - lengthening the bottom part of the seat leads to blood loss in the lower legs (pins n needles) for normal sized people, and the CLS seat really isn't all that "grippy" of one's sides and backside if you are under, say, 180lbs or so. It's actually just right, although I bet a nice Sparco or Recaro racing seat would grip quite a bit better.

If you think the CLS seat is too small then whatever you do, DON'T get a REAL racing seat... if you can even fit in one. :P

jts1207

i know this was brought up before but when they compared the 6 speed tranny to 4 wheel steering i laughed my ass off.........if the bmw had the 6 speed the whole damn article would have talked about what a technical marvel it is and how bmw is always one step ahead of the competition..........what a pile of crap

crazymongol

doesnt this topic end??

Tom2

You guys still crying?? :shakehd:

The quicker 5-60 mph times are probably not attributed to the tires. It's more a result of low end torque.

Simple. It's because of the gearing. Obviously, each car has a sweet spot. And the BMW might beat the CL-S to the quarter mile, but shortly thereafter, the CL-S pulls slightly ahead. And they seem to maintain about the same pulling power right up to the top speed of the BMW (governed at 135 mph)

The BMW has a limited slip differential. They just didn't mention it in the article because it is OLD NEWS for BMW. the limited slip differential in the Acura is brand new and they mentioned that it helped handling tremendously.

Think so? I've seen many automotive journalists complain the that front of the CL is angular, while the rear is much more rounded.

Do you have any idea how Car and Driver gets their performance numbers? Maybe you should read the fine print on their road test page. FYI, they only use lift-throttle shifts, while MOST people running good times at the track powershift. Also, they have the car weighed down with test equipment. Another thing they do is run the car opposite directions to cancel out any wind advantage/disadvantage and then average the times. There's even more, but this is getting too long already.

I gotta agree there......That one has me puzzled....

Yeah, and if you look at the numbers, the CL-S is 260 HP and the BMW is 225 HP. So I'd expect a higher trap speed for the CL-S.

Like I said, the BMW engine doesn't make as much power. That speaks volumes about it's fuel economy being better.

If you read the article, you'll see that Car and Driver felt that the BMW seats were more comfortable and that they felt more integrated with the car, as opposed to the Acura seats, in which some felt "perched atop" them, I think are the words they used.

Yes, that is impressive, but let's not forget that a 330Ci is not BMW's best effort in the handlng department for the 3 series.

Yes, you can obviously see the xenon headlights in the pictures of the BMW. I believe it had heated seats too..... and auto dimming mirror has been standard for years, if I'm not mistaken.

lou_RENAMED

Yea its not, but you can do the same with the CL, by negotiating you can probably get one for about $28500 non-navi. So no matter how you look at it there is a huge price difference. These two car are in two different categories when it comes to price, but performance about the same. Try to compare a car that cost 7k to 8k less than the CL-S, I can't think of one that can match the performance.

frryy

Okay, I haven't read all of your posts, but here's what I have to say. First, with people complaining about the CLS getting one more point than the 330 in value even though it cost 7000 less. The reason it only scored one point higher is because C/D feels that the 330 is worth the 7000 more.

Second, with the skidpad. That is a factor, but it is totally irrelevent when it comes to handling. If you see, the 330 out slalomed your precious CLS by 3.xx mph. And I saw that someone posted something about your CLS would post better 1.4 mile times in better weather, but so would the 330, didn't think of that, did ya? And just because other magazines post slower times, doesn't make C/D's times invalid. They are very good drivers, and most of them are ex-racecar drivers, or they hire professional drivers. When I saw that 14.4 1/4 time, I was suprised too.

And if you guys are so confident with your CLS', the why are you getting you getting so pissed at what C/D writes. Just deal with it. People who are winners don't have to prove anything to anyone. Just take the results of the comparison, and drive. Go out and try to beat the 330 you say you can beat. Go ahead and flame me, it would just prove my point.

Oh yeah, I drive a 330i.

Shawn S

:whocares:

frryy

Hey, who gives a fuck that you don't give a fuck. It was a joke if you didn't catch it. It is implying that I might be biased like all you guys with your CLS' are.