Silver, don't talk to Brickhead boy, he is still on medication. Just walk away from this now....whenever you see a post from TommyBoy, just keep on going right past it. Everyone on here told me to do that, but I didn't listen.....now I am....

 

Umm please tell me where you got those facts from that you are calling facts?

Please do because I want some proof. If you can't prove it, then your just a idiot kid with stupid opinions

 

Okay, show me a link, just one link ANYWHERE on the internet of a road test of a bone stock, production TA that runs 12's.

Like I've been saying all along.....

I'M WAITING......

 

105 mph trap is a 12 sec car. LOL!

 

It's simple logic.

Acura did not build the CL to be a low volume seller. Anyone on this board with any brains at all knows that.

How old are you? I find it funny that you want to call me a kid. I'm far from a kid, sonny

 

You know zero about drag racing.

for a car to run 12's and trap at 105 requires the use of slicks or at least drag radials.

Think about it, the Cobra on production tires barely dips into the 12's yet traps at 110 mph.

105 is too low of a trap speed to run 12's on street tires.

Get out to the strip and maybe you'll learn a thing or two.....

 

I can't continue arguing with kids that know nothing but think they know everything.

You guys believe whatever you will

I know better.

 

LOL ... First of all that's probably for the 4-speed auto. Since you like throwing out random numbers, here are mine from Motor Trend's review of the '99 GT:

I'll admit I've seen as high as 5.8 for a manual transmission GT coupe. However, that's at least .3 to .4 tenths FASTER than an auto CL-S which is what brought up this thread in the first place. Fact remains that an auto CL-S is not going to "walk all over" a GT. End of story.

 

This thread is the biggest joke I have seen in my life.

You guys with your CL's have a well-put-together, solid performing car. That being said...

GET A FUCKING GRIP!

I tend to associate cars like the CL-S with a more mature crowd, but you guys are the biggest group of retards I've ever encountered.

"Waaahh, you need a V8 to win, waaaaah, that Cobra has a blower, waaaaaah, my lame-ass rice bucket can't hang with cars that cost $10k less, waaaaaah."

Keep the V8 vs. V6 excuse going guys, if it makes you feel that much better. As for your "small" V6's making good power, it's not fucking rocket science - the cars rev high. Show me a stock Acura that puts 300+ lb-ft to the pavement and you might have a point.

With equal drivers, stock vs. stock, your CL DOESN'T HAVE A GODDAM chance against a Mustang GT. The sooner you learn to live with this, the sooner you'll stop looking like a bunch of half-witted monkeys.

A crash course in thermodynamics: our V8's move more air than your V6's. Anything you can do to your cars, we can do to ours and we'll come out on top every single time. I know this is hard to accept when you spend that much money on a car, so I don't expect you to take it well.

I can't believe one of you had the AUDACITY to put down the styling of Ford vehicles. LOOK AT YOUR FUCKING CAR? Talk about valium on wheels! I can just see the first design meeting for that car : "Ok guys, here's what I need. I need you to design a car that is completely devoid of sex appeal. All efforts must be focused on guaranteeing that it does not employ a single feature that - by ANY stretch of the imagination - might be considered cool looking. I mean it - if it ends up turning a single head, YOUR heads will be rolling."

To the guy who posted: FORD = FOUND ON ROAD DEAD. Holy shit dude, did you come up with that ALL BY YOURSELF? That's the wittiest thing I've read in years. Found on road dead... heh! HOW FUCKING CLEVER! Look out Dana Carvey! Look out Eddie Murphy! Look out Jerry Seinfeld! Acura-cl.com is hot on your tail, shelling out the most side-splitting, not to mention insanely original, material you've ever seen!

MORON!

Another thing - you guys sure like to magazine race. FUCK car magazines, they don't mean shit! You guys kill me - "Oh, Car and Driver got a 14.7 out of a Mustang so therefore that is what the car is capable of, God has spoken." And then, "Motor Trend got a 14.0 out of a Mustang! Bullshit! That can't be! What a hoax! It's already been established that those cars run 14.7! HAHAHA, how gullible do they think we are!" Again, use whatever means necessary to make yourselves feel better. The truth comes out on the street.

"When the green light drops, the BS stops!"

Later ladies!

 

The last 6 pages of bitching is pointless blabbing.

Fact: Several ACL members with stock or just CAI have been either even with or beaten the current model Mustang GT by a car length.

It doesn't matter for shit what numbers you want to claim the GT runs compared to our car, what matters is what really happened. So get your "OMG IT HAS TO BE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE FASTEST GT DRIVER DROVE A 14-flat QUARTER MILE AND ALL OTHER GTs AUTOMATICALLY GO JUST AS FAST EVERYTIME THEY RACE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD" head out of your ass.

If you're going to demandingly claim it's impossible and they're all liars and you "know better" you are fucking retarded.

All these other side debates about domestic car quality and numbers of cylinders is just about equally retarded. The only valid point to be made is that a CLS with FWD, two less cylinders and 1.4L less displacement, and at least as much car weight, is pulling even with the Mustang GT in some races. But once that gets mentioned all the other excuses and side arguments erupt.

 

Old enough to be your dad.

Also, lets get the comparison right.

Acura is a higher luxury brand.

Ford is not. Mercury and Lincoln are the more luxury brands of Ford. They don't have a CAR THAT CAN BE COMPARED to the CL.

The Stang if compared to the Accord Coupe, would be the car, but guess what, the Stang won't outsell an Accord coupe period or 4 door.

Most luxury brands do not sell many cars like the non-luxury brands.

 

Well that is because IRS is not good for drag racing and people know this. The new Cobras are not good at launching due to this. The FBODYs have a solid rear axle, which help for launching. On stock tires you can get 2.1 60s, and high 12s. I wonder how some magazines tested the fbody and got 12.8 stock/....

Weird.

 

Wow, if I didn't have a chance, wonder how I beat another stang last night on the highway. 99+ GT guys were racing fbodys which got smoked.

 

Please try to keep the generalities to a minimum, not all of us are into this debate and most understand the two cars’ marketplace.

In a stock versus stock race I wouldn't make a definite statement of one winning over the other, launch will ultimately determine this and even good drivers can hose a launch. The problem with the CL is off-the-line response. Even with the 6-Speed a 2.3 short time is good; FWD with a stock setup cannot get sub 2.1 60' times. So the advantage will go to the GT here not to mention the additional torque. A well driven new GT will take a CL off the line (and I'm referring to manual versus manual or auto versus auto).

But I am sure that any knowledgeable GT owner would also realize that a rolling start from 20 or so, where weight transfer is not relevant, might have different results. Yes the GT has more torque, but once the engine is at revs it becomes a HP game along with gearing which the 6-Speed CL has gearing set up to take advantage of its power. In other words, let’s define this hypothetical race because if it is simply running the 1320 then the GT is more at home. If it is the quick competition on the street from a roll, then it becomes more even with, IMO, the CL having an advantage of more revs.

In response to the statement about moving more air, this is also not absolutely correct. First we need to know the VE of each motor and I would assume the CL would have a higher number. Secondly, the additional revs the CL turns, along with the greater VE, may actually allow for a greater CFM value. But if you are referring to per stroke volume, then yes you are correct...

But to finish, these cars do not compete in the market. The GT sell very well as opposed to the CL. But in the end, when stuck in traffic and not at the track, the CL is the better car!!!:P :P

 

BTW, my Typhoon would turn low 13s but at low 100s, 13.24@102. So launch capability (AWD in the case of the Typhoon) can certainly cause the MPH to be lower in relation to ET.

I do agree that am F-Body that has an ET in the 12's but while trapping at about 106 is not high on power but does hook up well, 1.7 short time I'd guess...

 

Yeah, and my old AWD Talon would turn 13's @103. So what? My short times were usually 1.8 The point is that an AWD car is just as good as having a rear drive car with slicks. Disconnect the front wheels from your Typhoon and you'd be lucky to run high 13's at 100 mph.

Since a Firebird is a rear drive car, and not all-wheel-drive, a trap speed of 105 is too low to run 12's. Unless, like I already said, the Firebird was running slick.

If you want to make a comparison running slick, then throw a set of slicks on a new Cobra. MM&FF magazine did just that and ran very low 12's.

Anyway, the point is that anybody that actually drag races knows that a Firebird running stock tires will not hit 12's with a speed of 105. It's just not possible, because it would take VERY strong short time to do that. And Firebirds with original equipment street radials will not run a sub-2 second short time. That's a fact.

 

 

See, here's the problem with your statement--

I have witnesses probably thousands of Mustangs racing. I have also witnesses several CL-S racing. The fact is that different drivers produce different times. No shit on that Sherlock.

But, the Mustang has enough of an acceleration advantage that a so-so Mustang driver can still beat an excellent CL-S driver.

The two cars are just not as close as you guys like to think.

I'm sure a CL-S can beat a Viper too. But we all know better.
A Viper driver could fuck up 10 times in one race with a CL-S and still win.

 

Here's what needs to be done--

Why don't we coordinate a Mustang/CL-S meet between the forums?

We'll get everyone willing to race to come out to Englishtown. Then we'll see what kinda times everyone is running stock or modded.

Then we can make some valid comparisons. That will end the bullshit for good.

What do you guys say?

 

compared to the Mustang, Its like taking a trip around the world in a Concord or doing it in a hot air balloon....The mustang will get you there but with less comfort and dependability...Most people bought the CLS not to drag race but to have an all around car....personally I'd rather spend my time in a little more comfort than to rattle my brains, pop my ears w/ windnoise, and get burnt by other cars in my class (TA, Camaro, etc.)... In the CL-S class, I cant think of too many cars that will surpass it

 

Tom, chill out a bit and thoroughly read the post and do not assume the intention, I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU, just to make sure that was heard...

 

Of course the CL is going to have a better volumetric efficiency. I don't know the exact numbers but there's no way the CL is sucking more air mass than a GT at any RPM. Even though the CL's redline is higher, the VE is certainly not optimum at redline.

Quote:

The GT sell very well as opposed to the CL. But in the end, when stuck in traffic and not at the track, the CL is the better car!!!:P :P

When at the track, and not stuck in traffic, the Mustang is the better car. That's the whole point here.

 

I'm not talking about more air at any RPM; I am referring to the maximum amount regardless of RPM. Both cars make 260 HP which should equate to roughly the same CFM, it does take X amount of air and fuel to make Y HP.

The CFM is the amount of air the engine is moving. The GT moves a maximum of X amount at a lower rev. The CL moves about the same X amount but does so because the engine is turning faster.

BTW, I'm not arguing, just relating relevant points... Also, define at the track, 1320 or road course which in its self needs further definition?? Track has many definitions, I do like Atlanta Dragway but I prefer Road Atlanta, both are tracks...

 

I have been drag racing for about oh, since 1996, so thats 7 years now. I have raced cars from FWD, AWD, to RWD cars. I know a bit more than you in regards to this and that was proven already.

So lets see.

Tell me how a FWD Maxima on NOS, can run a 12.2 sec 1/4 time but only trap 109 Automatic at that?

He had slicks on the front, BUT ITS FWD, no way!


It's all in the size of tires and wheels combo, also the gearing which is used.

I have SEEN many Firebirds/Z28s hit 12s stock and some with a couple of mods are hitting low 12s!

We are at a sea level track which gets the best times.

 

Acura CL is a luxury sport coupe. It goes against the SC400, BMW 330CI, and many others. It is classfied that.

 

There are too many factors at play - completeness of combustion, variation of VE with RPM, frictional losses, etc. etc. etc. to just jump to the "equal flywheel hp means equal CFM" conclusion.

But for the sake of argument let's assume that both 260 hp motors are capable of the same CFM. That's only *maximum* CFM, which would be taking place at a very small percentage of the RPM band. Which brings me back to where this started: whatever you do to a 3.2L, you can do to a 4.6L and come out ahead - especially if the cars have similar weights (and in this case, they do).

Since this is all about straight line acceleration, I thought it would be pretty clear that I was referring to the drag strip.

 

 

Okay, so what. Your still not getting my point. I have seen it with my VERY OWN EYES A LS1 run high 12s stock. I see GTs run 14s stock.

Have a nice day.

 

GTStang1,

A lot of the guys on this board are idiots that have no clue (Scalbert is not one of them though) about perfomance cars.

Don't waste too much of your time trying to talk any sense into them. They simply bought a car that was advertised to have 260 HP and therefore think they're race car drivers

Don't get the wrong idea though.... these fools don't represent everybody on this board. There are a few good guys that have a brain.

 

Hey dickhead, if you're gonna quote me, learn how to do it correctly.

 

Except that it's not what we think, it's what happened. I mean I realize your skull is so thick and your head is so far up your ass that it's hard for you to comprehend anything that isn't exactly in line with what you believe, but, for like the tenth time, there are several auto CLS drivers here who have kept up with or slightly beaten Mustang GTs on the street.

I don't understand why you have to make a big flaming homosexual deal out of that just because you're too ignorant to accept what some of the less-ricey, less-exaggerative posters here have reported in the Kill Stories section. I could understand if it was some OMG OMG I JUST KILLED SOME MODDED MUSTANG COBRA UP AND DOWN THIS STRETCH OF ROAD AND SHIT WITH MY CIVIC, but that's not the people that are reporting these "kills".

Your entire personality defies the logic you claim to hold so dear to every argument you stuble into. It doesn't really matter what your physical age is, because your personality here is around human age 12.

 

You're far more stupid than I even thought possible.

The CL is not in direct competition with the SC400. Those two cars are not even in the same price league. Stupid ass....

 

JRock,

whatever. You can deny all you want along with the other Acura losers.

But the fact remains that I know better. Deep down, so do you.

 

You're right - we all must have imagined those races. And we're all losers too! Wow, thanks for showing us the light, Tom2!

 

No problem, bud

 

What?!

Okay, is the BMW 330CI in the same price range? NO! It's about 10k more. And guess what, its directly compared.

The SC400 is Lexus Coupe and it is compared or was when it was made to the CL-S. It's no longer made, wonder why.

 

Wow, everyone on this board must be stupid and losers.

But we drive much more expensive nicer cars than someone with a old stang trying to say he is right.

I think people on this board have a bit more education than this Tom person.

 

The SC400 is not a direct competitor of the CL-S.

99% of the people on this forum will agree with me.

You are once again wrong.

Hell, even the 330Ci is a bit of a stretch, as it costs quite a bit more. But at least it is closer in price.

So how old are you? I know you claim to be over 50 (if you're old enough to be my father, LOL), but I'm thinking you're about 23 at the most. You certainly act/talk like a 10 year old.

You've got a lot to learn.