I defended the CL on Jtuned.com
Thread Starter
I'm a Vagiterian.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Home of FreakNick.
I defended the CL on Jtuned.com
Check it out, here's the link if if you feel like reading the whole thing.
Ch-ch-check it out.
Here's the jist of what I said.
Boy are you wrong. And here's why.
1. 14.6 @ 96mph in the 1320. That's not quick?
2. 0-60 in 6.4 seconds. Still not quick?
3. C&D said it has one of the best FWD handling systems that they've ever tested.
260hp,
232tq.
Redline at 7,100rpm.
Lack of power? I think not.
I happen to have a 2001 3.2CL Type-S. I can tell you that it's none of those things you claimed. What may make you think it's slow, is it's weight.
The motor on mine is stock, except for the intake resonator removal. It still walks Mustang GT's. Has enough power (including torque. Honda with torque. lol) to throw you, and your passengers in their seats.
The car will handle exceptionally well. Although, I do have D2 RS coilovers. (slammed 2.3f 2.0r) It hangs with the best of them in the twisties. The VSA system on this car is top notch. It's corrected a couple of my stupid mistakes and saved me from trouble; when I was still learning the car. Another thing. Even with stock sway bars, it rotates like a RWD car. It doesn't throw the back end out, the back end just slightly swings out, and is easially corrected with counter-steer. It handles very neutral. Not too much over steer, and not too much understeer.
I hope this has made yous guys change your negative prespective on this car. I'm not too biased. I've driven several cars that are better than this car. But I can tell you, it's not too shabby for a FWD glorified Honda.
Ch-ch-check it out.
Here's the jist of what I said.
Originally Posted by Ryan
Originally Posted by Coco-Puffs
its nothing fast nor quick. its probably not agile either.
1. 14.6 @ 96mph in the 1320. That's not quick?
2. 0-60 in 6.4 seconds. Still not quick?
3. C&D said it has one of the best FWD handling systems that they've ever tested.
Originally Posted by Coco-Puffs
the only bad side i can think of is its lack of power
232tq.
Redline at 7,100rpm.
Lack of power? I think not.
I happen to have a 2001 3.2CL Type-S. I can tell you that it's none of those things you claimed. What may make you think it's slow, is it's weight.
The motor on mine is stock, except for the intake resonator removal. It still walks Mustang GT's. Has enough power (including torque. Honda with torque. lol) to throw you, and your passengers in their seats.
The car will handle exceptionally well. Although, I do have D2 RS coilovers. (slammed 2.3f 2.0r) It hangs with the best of them in the twisties. The VSA system on this car is top notch. It's corrected a couple of my stupid mistakes and saved me from trouble; when I was still learning the car. Another thing. Even with stock sway bars, it rotates like a RWD car. It doesn't throw the back end out, the back end just slightly swings out, and is easially corrected with counter-steer. It handles very neutral. Not too much over steer, and not too much understeer.
I hope this has made yous guys change your negative prespective on this car. I'm not too biased. I've driven several cars that are better than this car. But I can tell you, it's not too shabby for a FWD glorified Honda.
Trending Topics
Racer
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 301
Likes: 3
From: Chicago, IL
I love my CL. Absolutely no problems yet- knock on wood. I don't feel like registering over there, but since a couple guys are thinking about buying this car, perhaps somone should warn them about the tranny troubles that many of us are having over here...
I NEED MONEY!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Originally Posted by cltypeSLOW
yea i read it...you were pretty right on cept for the walking gt mustangs part. i can beat them, but by no means do i ever walk GT's
i/h/e/pulleys
Don't Mess With Texas
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,600
Likes: 2
From: austin tx
Originally Posted by VeeralS05
I've walked a Mustang GT... but thts w. my mods...
i/h/e/pulleys
i/h/e/pulleys
same here...but its still great to see the looks on their faces 
10th Gear
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
From: PA
Ive done it twice, having the back end slide out... not from power though like a RWD. Wrather I have done weight transfers & both times were accidental avoiding something on a turn, but anyhow i basically threw my wheel the opposite way of the turn while breaking (to avoid a pothole the first time) and then threw it back towards the turn romping on the gas ( to avoid the gaurd rail) and i did get something similar to what you guys are calling rotation like RWD cars which i assume is due to the back end being lighter, but i am not sure.
I'm here in spirit...
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
From: CO
Awesome, Ryan! Way to defend! 
I've felt my tail end step out on me a couple times and yes, it feels more like a weight transfer. It's not like you can drift the car by any means.
<--------- Has also been known to be an older Mustang GT spanker.
I've felt my tail end step out on me a couple times and yes, it feels more like a weight transfer. It's not like you can drift the car by any means.
<--------- Has also been known to be an older Mustang GT spanker.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 816
Likes: 3
From: Wisconsin
Originally Posted by mrsteve
Meh... any car that claims 260 crank hp and only puts down 190-195 seems a little fishy to me. I bet it would be closer to 245-250 under the new SAE revised standard.
Thread Starter
I'm a Vagiterian.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
From: Home of FreakNick.
Originally Posted by Lord Helmet
Awesome, Ryan! Way to defend!
I've felt my tail end step out on me a couple times and yes, it feels more like a weight transfer. It's not like you can drift the car by any means.
I've felt my tail end step out on me a couple times and yes, it feels more like a weight transfer. It's not like you can drift the car by any means.
Originally Posted by 2003TL-S
I don't think its that far off. The initial 270hp for the 3rd gen TL turned into 258hp. Meaning the Type-S by that is some where around 250 or a little less. However with the 3G's 258hp, when I was stock I could beat a stock 3G auto TL, so my guess is closer to 258hp SAE for a Type-S, just my opinion.
Originally Posted by brianlin87
ur opinion is wrong. there's plenty of dyno sheets out there if you do a search that show exactly how much power the CL-S is putting down. With headers, intake, you may be somewhere near 250 but no way are you putting down that kind of power stock....
I'm not sure on the auto's.
Safety Car
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,447
Likes: 1
From: Somewhere in Denver, CO
I took an offramp really fast once the day after it snowed, and the outside half of the offramp still had snow on it (because of the shade) and the inside was dry. my rear end broke loose on the snow and i was drifting the off ramp at 60 mph. Freaked me the fuck out, but was probably the coolest thing I have ever experienced.
it wasn't really an offramp, but more like a transfer between two highways. suggested speed is 40 mph so I wasn't going too fast over, and I couldn't see the snow till it was too late. At least I wasn't stupid enough to let off the gas
it wasn't really an offramp, but more like a transfer between two highways. suggested speed is 40 mph so I wasn't going too fast over, and I couldn't see the snow till it was too late. At least I wasn't stupid enough to let off the gas
~~~~~~~~~~~
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 816
Likes: 3
From: Wisconsin
I was talking crank horsepower not wheel horsepower 
260 CRANK hp with ~23% loss due to the auto(Which varies) will get you just about 200 WHEEL horsepower, which is what many Type-S have dynoed at. Most are in the range of 190-200 WHEEL hp. My opinion is not wrong. Know the difference between wheel and crank
260 CRANK hp with ~23% loss due to the auto(Which varies) will get you just about 200 WHEEL horsepower, which is what many Type-S have dynoed at. Most are in the range of 190-200 WHEEL hp. My opinion is not wrong. Know the difference between wheel and crank