Thats what I have read in a mag....is this true?

 

not true...the TL is over 40 pounds heavier...some mags say the TL is 0-60 in around 7 flat.

 

If your a fat Car & Driver editor it sure is!

In reality... no. Same car... one weighs less. Thats the CL.

The CL should, by the numbers, have better traction as well.

But then, the TL has lighter wheels... albeit less traction.

If any is literally faster it SHOULD be the CL by about a finger nail.

If either is at all faster then the other.. no... i doubt it.

I bet if you ran 10 runs CLS vs TLS... each would win 5.

 

I've seen 6.2-7.0 sec 0-60 for the TL. THe CL I've also seen similar numbers. I'd say they're probably similar in this category. Really, the engine is the same, the trans and gearing is the same, the weight is about the same, how different can the numbers really be.

The test results depend on the driver, environment, etc.

 

if both drivers have same weight..and cl-s will be faster than tl-s

 

hell nah

 

I bet you'd get a different answer on the TL site!

 

It's funny how everyone likes to quote that one screwed up CL-S time..15.3 and 6.7....the magazine should rescind that number especially when they also show the TL-S at 14.7 and 6.2...that kind of misinfo has made CL sales lag a bit more than than normal.

 

It's Acuras fault for not paying the magazine enough money for the numbers.

 

heheheheeh....that's what you get when you have an intern drive the car.

 

These magazines do 2 test runs, and take an avg. of the two.

In my experience against TL's I've never lost.

As for those guys on the TL board, FUCK'em.

And are you guys sure the weight difference is only 40 lbs!?

 

I didnt think so and I know mag times are not all that...but I was just checking!

 

It seems that a lot of magazines tested the TL-S faster than the CL-S in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. The difference is only around a couple tenths of a second, so that is pretty much negligible. The acceleration results should be similar.

However, there was that recent Road & Track article that timed the TL-S 7.0 sec. for the 0-60 (almost the same as the IS300!). So it just goes to show the variance in the test conditions, weight of driver, etc.

What irks me is that some people, including magazine editors, take the tested TL-S faster times as gospel. One article I read said something to the effect that the TL-S gave a "slap in the face to its sibling CL-S by being faster in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile test." That's just plain ignorance. There is no reason why one should be faster than the other. It's like saying red CL-S cars are faster than the black ones.

 

The CLS loses out by about a half second since it is the bastard of the car community. It has nothing to do with actual speed, just biases.

I mean really, the car mags haven't so much as tested the CL against a single car aside from the initial BMW 328 comparison (which is probably where some of the car mag biases come from). I think I 've read about 6 articles on the IS300 vs. all comers.

It makes me sad sometimes when I look at my car b/c I know I really like the car but I feel that it really is a bastard child that nobody loves. And, if my brakes and transmission give out on me (which I feel like I'm waiting for to happen)then I'm really going to be upset. Oh well.

 

if it makes you guys feel better... i think the TLS is FASTER!! :p

 

Its a possiblity that the TL takes off better. If this is the case the TL might be faster. I need to race AC gain and see whats up. He took me off the line by a good margin. It could of been the driver, or it could of been the TL takes off better.

Spiro

 

I fully agree !

 

I SECOND THAT NOTION!!!

NO WAY IN HELL THAT THE TL-S IS FASTER THAN THE CL-S.......THEY MUST HAVE MORBIDLY OBESE TEST DRIVERS

 

They're both automatics, so I don't think the driver has much to do with it. It doesn't take much skill to just stomp on the gas. Stock vs. stock the results should be pretty even.

 

Spiroh,

I remember when I raced you, I took off better than you as well. However, we decided after we raced that you did have much better high-end power (even though the tranny forced you to pre-shift at 5000 rpms) and you also lost some low-end torque due to the catback exhaust.

We need to race again.

 

I've always been under the impression that the TL-S might have a slight traction advantage, maybe due to longer wheel base (?) or better weight distribution. I don't know for sure on either, but if it were true those would be my top two guesses as to why.

 

yea we all know im a better driver... HAHA im playin.

Spiro im surpised you actually admited that i had a better jump on that little race we had. We really need to get my car dynoed and we really need to head to the track to settle this CLS vs TLS thing.

 

ahhh but you have to keep in mind, that all i have is the CAI and spiro has the vtec controller, HEADERS and the CAI. I think he still should have pulled off the line better. I know he can take me on the high end.

 

Spiro man, you got taken by 2 TLS, I know you thinking about NOS now!! HAHAHA j/k

 

That's not a nice thing to say about your 4-door brother. Chill out!

 

My 91 Exploder will take them all! Ha ha ha!

 

hey gto where u been? you been MIA for the past couple months.

 

I know....He don't like us no more!

 

I know....He don't like us no more!

 

I hope they post new numbers for our car after the 6spd comes out

 

so, impart your wisdom and tell us how you'd launch this auto tranny car. do you leave traction control on or off? do you allow lots of wheelspin or only a little? do you torque brake the tranny or no? do you ease into the gas or just stomp it and hope for the best? does the technique matter if you're trying to make a 0-60 run versus a 1/4 mile run?

I've run this car at the track and I can tell you that while launching an auto may be easier and less skill intensive than launching a manual, it isn't just gas-n-go. launching any car quickly and consistently requires considerable care and practice, regardless of the transmission type. hell, it takes multiple timed runs just to determine the optimum technique, before even considering consistency. a real problem arises when you begin testing two different cars (even the same model) or test with two different drivers or test at two different times, or any combination thereof.

I've seen people running mid 15s with the type s, and I've seen people run high 14s as well. the magazines report times all over the place as well, even for the same vehicle. this is, in part, because driver skill has an impact on a car's performance, automatic or otherwise.

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: tankmonkey ]

 

Here is my theory as to why the TLS cars have been testing stronger than the CLS cars:

It is very often that when a new engine is introduced, quality control is less stringent in the beginning. This is the reason why the very first Q45 cars were so slow. Parts of the engine have larger tolerances which is enough to make a 5%-10% of a decline in HP. The problem is eliviated as production volume increases and quality control becomes stricter.

Most mags tested the CLS cars last year. When the CLS came out. Which was about a year earlier than the TLS cars.

I bet if tests of CLS cars are done now, the 0-60 and 1/4 mile results will be much improved over the aggregate of last year's tests. You will see very low 6s and mid 14s easy.

 

There is more to driving an automatic then you think. I just hit the gas, and all that got me was a lot of wheel spin to the point where i moved to the right a little bit. If I had to do it again I woul NOT just hit the gas. My win/loss record is FUxxED. Ive lost to 2 stock TLS's already =) Unfortunately Headers only make a diff on ther high end.

 

Shame on you Spiroh....tsk tsk....you wanna fly out here..we can give you launching lessons...

 

I diagree. My time from different runs on a same day are up .7 sec different. Same driver, same care, same conditions, different runs have different times. We are talking about different cars, different driver, different conditions. Why even bother?

 

UH hem... im NOT STOCK!!

 

Oh sorry..let me add the intake =)

 

Some "stuff" about TLS vs. CLS

On the Acura site, www.acura.com they specs say that the TLS needs 92-octane gas. The CLS spec says that 91 octane is required.

(Hmmm... is everybody that sure that the engine management wasn't changed????)

The TLS wheels are smaller and lighter by a few pounds -- making for more effective HP/Torque than a CLS across the WHOLE power range.

What's the deal with the TLS manual requiring owners to put in 5W20 (thinner oil) vs. the CLS manual's 5W30 (or 10W30 if your getting picky with me)?

I was looking through a recent Road and Track (with the TLS) and they showed the gear ratios as show for both the TLS and CLS.
However, they show the gear speeds for the TLS as:

39MPH
69MPH
99MPH
150MPH
150MPH

Check the 99MPH for 3rd gear -- I sure remember doing about 113-115 on the speedo at the rev cut-off in 3rd in the CLS. While the speedo is known to be off, can it be that off?

Finally, in the article, they have the curb weight for the TLS listed as 3570lbs and the test weight at 3675. Can I believe that they test the cars with no gas and a 105lb driver or a full tank and a ghost driver...