I remember seeing the debates here over whether or not the 2002 TL Type S would be faster or slower than the coupes....... according to C&D the new TL takes 6.9 seconds, weighs in at 3550 (heavier!), and does the 1/4 in 15.1 @ 94mph. From the mouths of "experts".

------------------
CL-S PDG, TR Typhoon Wheels, Solaris 9005, guards, nose mask, V-1 & remote.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...493&p=31386570

 

Everyone from the TL fourm is claming that the new TL Type S will be faster but why?
It has the same engine as ours and the cl-p vs. tl . The TL is heavier. Then wouldn't this conclude that the cl-s is lighter than the tl-s? Also i doubt a couple pounds would make such a drastic differance. I think both cars will have almost identical performance specs. IMO

------------------
CL-S
White/Ebony/Navi/Spoiler/Visor/Full Bra/Mud Guards/Cargo Net/Acura Car Cover/Tint 20%,35%,5% on Sun Roof, Rockford 250a2 Amp w/JL10w6 / K&N Drop in Filter. Comptech Springs. Polarg m-6.
Comptech Headers, Comptech Sways, Eurolite Xenon Crystal high beams.
AEM CAI once they decide to make the dame thing.
235/40/17's or 225/45/17's once I found out which one works for me.

gtech 0-60 6.03 w/ 438 pound load. preheader.

 

Irrelevant, from one car to the next, who knows. How full is the tank, how fat is the driver, how happy is the car.

 

I agree.

 

I don't know if this will be helpful or harmful, but I did have the opportunity to race a stock TL when my non-navi CL-S was just past the break-in period. After 1/2 a block, I was already up by 1/3-1/2 of a car length. I had it in D5 and my VSA was on as well as my climate control(I didn't even do a brake launch or whatever you call that thing...I just punched the gas at the green light). After that, I just quit because there was traffic coming up. My guess is that it'll probably be a pretty close race with the TL-S but the CL-S will come out on top. But then again, who's to say...there are way too many factors to account for to decide which car will be faster. This car just corrupts a driver...first time I've participated in a race in well over 3 years...I thought I already outgrew such behaviour. I guess not.

[This message has been edited by Satin Slayer (edited 02-04-2001).]

 

Yeah, it's probably a toss up one car to the next. They weigh within 25-35# of each other so it shouldn't make that much of a difference. I wish these mags would put a set amount of gas in cars, have drivers that are "uniform in weight" for accuracy's sake, or at least post added weight to the test car.

------------------
CL-S PDG, TR Typhoon Wheels, Solaris 9005, guards, nose mask, V-1 & remote.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...493&p=31386570

 

it's probably because of that 6.7sec 0-60 they saw in one of those mags once...and that mag has pretty much kept that number (motortrend?). so they all claim that their tl can do 0-60 in 6.7, so a tl-s must be able to do it in less than 6.4.

but unfortunately, most (probably 90%) can't do it in 6.7, or even under 7.

 

There is one thing I missed with my 4-door teg.
That was when opening the sunroof and opening the back door windows. It wouldn't blow my hair all over the place.

Now with the sunroof open I have to find just the right spot for the windows to reduce interior windtunnel effect.

------------------
Silver CL type S, upgraded cupholder, PIAA-19169, 3 coats Zaino and a pinch of salt

 

I think we'll be able to take the TL-S. I like the TL-S, but I think the looks of the coupe are much smoother...IMO...

 

I think its going to depend on how good of a driver you are. Other than that its going to be pretty even.

------------------
2001 Acura 3.2 CL Type-S
San Marino Red/Ebony/Navi/Spoiler/Nose Mask/Mud Guards/Wheel locks/
Comptech Springs & Filter/PIAA 1969/20% Tint/Acura lettering removed/
12in Sub with AMP/Dynomated Trunk/Sub control under dash/
Clifford G4 Solaris Alarm

 

Motortrend did publish the 3.2TL's accleration figures a while back (June 2000). They not only published 0-60 as you rightly pointed out, they also published the 0-30, 0-40, 0-50, 0-60, 0-70, 0-80, 0-90 and also the quarter mile. So it was not a 0-60 figure they pulled out of thin air as you seem to be implying...

Here are the numbers from that test:

3.2TL 5-speed automatic:
0-30mph-----2.5 Secs
0-40mph-----3.7 Secs
0-50mph-----5.1 Secs
0-60mph-----6.7 Secs
0-70mph-----9.0 Secs
0-80mph-----11.5 Secs
0-90mph-----14.3 Secs
Quarter mile: 15.2Secs at 93.1mph

For comparison, the accleration numbers of various other competitive cars tested by Motortrend at the same place and time, were as follows:

2000 Infiniti I-30t
0-30mph-----2.9 Secs
0-40mph-----4.1 Secs
0-50mph-----5.9 Secs
0-60mph-----7.9 Secs
0-70mph-----10.0 Secs
0-80mph-----13.0 Secs
0-90mph-----16.6 Secs
Quarter Mile: 16.0 secs at 88.5mph

2000 Lexus ES300
0-30mph-----2.8 Secs
0-40mph-----4.0 Secs
0-50mph-----5.9 Secs
0-60mph-----7.9 Secs
0-70mph-----10.1 Secs
0-80mph-----13.3 Secs
0-90mph-----16.6 Secs
Quarter Mile: 16.0 at 87.5mph

2000 Oldsmobile Aurora 3.5
0-30mph-----2.9 Secs
0-40mph-----4.2 Secs
0-50mph-----5.8 Secs
0-60mph-----7.8 Secs
0-70mph-----10.3 Secs
0-80mph-----13.1 Secs
0-90mph-----17.0 Secs
Quarter Mile: 16.0 at 88.4mph.

Also, another one of the Big-3 magazines (Road and Track) tested the 1999 3.2TL (which had the 4-speed automatic trans) and their results were 0-60 time of 7.2Secs. It is generally accepted that the 2000 TL improved on the 1999 TL's 0-60 time by 0.50 secs due to the transmission change to a 5-speed automatic and also a free-flowing intake manifold along with other intake modifications that improved low-end torque and mid-range power, which would take the Road and Track time of the 2000 3.2TL to 6.7 Secs again (Motortrend time matched by Road and Track ?!!!!).....assuming they tested the 2000 TL...

You have mentioned that "most can't do it in 6.7 or even under 7"....what specifically did you mean by that ?!! It is well known that such cars in the hands of professional drivers (like the testers in these magazines) would do well but may not do as well in the hands of everyday drivers !!! The same situation would be applicable to any car including BMW 330, BMW 540, 3.2CL, 3.2CLs, Acura NSX etc...so what was your point ?!!!



------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

It amazes me that the TL-s as a car has not even hit the streets and already we find 0-60 figures of the Phantom TL-s, being bandied around in such forums....wow !!!

------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

Arthur.........turn to page 83 in your March 2001 Car and Driver magazine thank you.

------------------
CL-S PDG, TR Typhoon Wheels, Solaris 9005, guards, nose mask, V-1 & remote.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...493&p=31386570

 

i'm not implying that they pulled it out of the air, i'm implying that the tl people see the best number and cling on to it with their lives.

of course the times are going to vary from car to car as well as from environment, but i'm sure most tl's can't do a 6.7 0-60.

same as us, we cling to 6.4 whether our cars do it in 7.0, 6.7 or 6.59 or whatever just 'cuz it was the best published number.

so if someone is clinging to 6.7 for a 225hp tl, imagine what it should be if it was 260hp...that's a way of looking at it, but as i said before, most tl's aren't getting under 7 sec.

 

mrdeeno:

As I stated earlier, the Road and Track figure of 7.2 Secs 0-60 was for the 1999 3.2TL ....it is commonly accepted that with the transmission change and the intake modifications in the 2000 TL, the 0-60 time improved by 0.50 Secs....even conservative Acura, claimed as much in their 2000 3.2TL literature..... So if you subtract 0.5 secs out of 7.2 Secs that would take the time of 7.2 secs to 6.7 Secs, right ?!!! Which tallies exactly with the 0-60 time obtained for the 2000 3.2TL by Motortrend.....so now we have 2 separate sources that have obtained 0-60 time of 6.7 Secs for the 3.2TL....

I don't know why, but maybe quite a bit of the acceleration times are also in the gearing of the transmission in addition to the power and torque from the engine....since the TL and the CL/CL-s shares the exact same transmission (with the exact same gear ratios), I think the CL-S would be a little bit faster than the TL.....not a lot faster....which tallies with the figure of 6.4 Secs 0-60 for the CL-s vs 6.7 Secs 0-60 for the TL. But the handling (of the CL-s) should be better (than the TL) due to slightly stiffer springs, different dampers and stiffer anti-roll bar in the rear.....

------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

TL type S is supposed to be 100 pounds lighter than the CLS.



------------------
True Hip-hop junkie

 

3550 lbs = TL Type S

------------------
CL-S PDG, TR Typhoon Wheels, Solaris 9005, guards, nose mask, V-1 & remote.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?...493&p=31386570

 

I thought the same thing, but this info came from people at the car show, not necessarily the most accurate people. It didn't make sense to me how the TL-S could be lighter given the fact that a) it's a bigger car and b) the current TL is heavier then the CL. Either way, they are so close that it really shouldn't matter.....



------------------
1998 Iced Blue CL 3.0 ** Some mods, but who cares, I want a Type-S!!

Moderator - 1st Gen Forum

Email: juniorbean@acura-cl.com

 

I think you are missing deeno's point which is that 6.7 and 7.2 are the FASTEST numbers that ANYONE ever got for the '99 and '00+ TL's. I've also seen 7.7 sec for the '99. I've seen 7.2 for the '00+ TL. If you average all the numbers out, the '99 TL was probably 7.4-7.7 and the '00+ TL is probably 7.0-7.2. All the tests for the CL-S ran from 6.4 to 6.8 seconds although I think someone said they've even seen a 7.0. When I refer to how fast my car is, I take an average of 6.6. The point is... again... it's probably more accurate to take an average than to take the fastest time you've seen for any given car.


------------------
2001 Acura 3.2CL Type S
Comptech Springs
Comptech Sway Bars
PIAA 19169
Comptech headers ordered 2/1/01

 

Actually, according to a official acura chart, the 2001 TL weighs 23 pounds less than a CL-S. I doubt the TL will get lighter for next MY with the TL-S having VSA, and a few other new items. Either or, I would expect the time to be within a tenth of the CL-S. And it's going to be tough to nail down a fixed number too. There are variables that can sway that number a tenth or more, like say temp, fuel octane, fuel load, driver load, etc..... I expect the numbers to be close, very close, same goes for performance, very close.... It's very hard to say until more people get their hands on the car. I do know that Acura has started to get the car to people like Motortrend, C&D, R&T and such for reviews....

------------------
2001 Acura 3.2TL
Satin Silver

 

not really...both car use the same engine.and there arent much differences between both cars..two doors and four doors..maybe rims...but they are all similar..so the weight for both cars would be close....



------------------
01 silver cl-s
k&n air filter

clean cl-s=270 HP

 

Weight of 2001 CL ---- 3470 lbs
Weight of 2001 CL-S--- 3510 lbs
Weight of 2001 TL ---- 3483 lbs

Thus the TL is 13 lbs heavier than the CL...so extrapolating that to the TL-s, the predicted weight of the TL-s = 3510 + 13 = 3523 lbs.

About accleration, the TL-s and the CL-s would be identical IMO and should be pretty close to the figures of the TL or the CL....mainly due to identical gear ratios of the TL/CL/CL-s/TL-s....so if the CL-s/TL-s is at 6.6, then the TL/CL would be at 6.8 to 6.9...of course assuming that the tests are done by the same person at the same place and time....




------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

I agree with the above post... And that's kinda what I said earlier....

------------------
2001 Acura 3.2TL
Satin Silver

 

Actually, isn't the CLP heavier than the current TL?

------------------
True Hip-hop junkie

 

The TL-S has four doors and will thus, in average, carry more people than an average CL-S (an average TL-S buyer will prefer four door since they expect to carry more people than the CL-S buyer.) A TL-S on the street will therefore be in average heavier, and slower, than an average CL-S.



------------------
2001 Acura 3.2 CL TypeS -- White/Ebony, No Emblems
1998 Honda Prelude -- Black/Black, MN5

 

Read the weights posted above...they are from the Technical specs section of Acura....The current TL is heavier than the current CL by 13 lbs....which is no biggie since this negligible difference can be negated by even things like differences in drivers' weights....


------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

On the surface, the above post sounds logical...but a bit flawed however....

The TL-s/TL has got the capability to carry more people in comfort than the CL/CL-s due to its 4-door nature and luckily weighs almost exactly the same as the less practical 2-door version (CL/CL-s) ....but generally what one sees on the streets are TLs with just the driver in the car (even though it has got the capability to carry 4 additional people IN COMFORT)....I would believe it would be the same case with the CL/CL-s

On occasions when we take the TL out, my car also includes my wife as a passenger...but when we took a trip to Illinois from New Jersey a while back, there were 4 of us in the car with all associated luggage and stuff...and all of us were totally comfortable.....however, rarely does my TL contain more than myself as the sole occupant....

------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

You realize I was joking, right? Mmm, maybe not...



------------------
2001 Acura 3.2 CL TypeS -- White/Ebony, No Emblems
1998 Honda Prelude -- Black/Black, MN5

 

arthur,
while we're talking about flawed logic, i still only see 1 source for the 6.7 time.

1) motortrend claims they got 6.7 for the '00 tl
(this is 1 source).

2) acura claims their new for '00 tranny can do .5 sec. better than the prev.
unless:
acura states that their '99tl can do 7.2 (which they don't)

or

acura claims that they got 6.7 for their '00/'01 (also which they don't)...

this isn't another source...you can't mix what acura claims about their new tranny and what motortrend got in their '99 tl test as a separate source. (the '99's 7.2 you used is from motortrend, which isn't separate from the '00's 6.7, which is also from motortrend and therefore 1 source).

anyway, acura claims their '00/'01 0-60 is 7.7 sec.

but i proved myself correctly...there is still only 1 independent source that says 6.7, yet everyone with a tl will jump on and hold on for life that their car can do
0-60mph in 6.7sec.

 

mrdeeno:

This topic is starting to get stale. But let me try to put it across once again....

The 2000 3.2TL differed from the 99 TL in the following ways:

The transmission changed from a 4-speed automatic (shared with the Accord V6) to an entirely different 5-speed auto with totally different gear ratios (currently found in the TL/CL/CL-s).

Also, a lot of intake modifications including a free-flowing intake manifold in the 2000 model increased low end torque and also mid-range power (over the 99 model) even though the peak HP and Torque figures of the engine remained the same.

Due to the above differences, you cannot take the figure of a 1999 TL and apply it to a 2000 TL.

Also when you compare acceleration figures from magazines, you will have to compare the figures for the TL and the CL-s from the same magazine....you cannot cross-compare figures for the 2 cars across magazines...in other words, you cannot pull out a figure for the TL from one magazine and compare it with the figure for the CL-s from another magazine.....since we can assume that within the same magazine, the test drivers and their test areas would be the same....

So to compare the figures from the Big-3 magazines, here are the figures:

1) Motortrend:
2000 TL - 6.7 Secs
2001 CL-s - 6.4 Secs

2) Road and track:
2000 TL - Test not done (invalid 99 TL figure available)
2001 CL-s - 6.7 Secs

3) Car and Driver:
2000 TL - 7.4 Secs
2001 CL-s - Test not done (invalid 99 3.0 CL figure available).

So to draw a conclusion from the above (as you have been doing), is impossible....but due to the identical gear ratios of the two cars, I would estimate the "Road and Track" time for the TL to be about 6.9 Secs (since the test for the CL-s was done on a hot 102 degree day) and the "Car and Driver" time for the 2001 CL-s to be about 7.1 Secs assuming everything else (Temperature, Humidity, elevation, time of day, test drivers) remain the same....




------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

Talk about a flawed statement: how in the world can you say that generally only one person is in a TL on the road? Second, I've driven plenty of stock TLs and if you find one that does 0-60 in 6.7 I'll buy you lunch.
No offense to TL owners, but the stock TL feels like a snail compared to my CLS


------------------
Black/black CL Type S Comptech springs, headers. Soon to have Konis and Comptech sway bars. PIAA 19169, Solaris high beams. Potenza RE730's 225/45/ZR17
...And I wonder where my money goes!

 

In how many cars in the US do you find more than the driver in the car on the way to work or anywhere else ? If you need to cart the entire family around, you would opt for a minivan, I would suppose ?

No offense to you but I believe you either drove a defective 3.2TL or have a loftier perception of your CL-s than is logically warranted....

There is no way in hell can the CL-s be much faster than the TL (a little bit maybe but not by much) due to the identical gear ratios ....the 4th and 5th gears of the TL/CL/CL-s are highly over-driven gears and so you cannot accelerate with them....if the gear ratios were different (eg. if the CL-s 4th gear was not over-drive), then it would kick the TL's butt with the 35 additional horses...but it is not and so the speeds of the TL/CL-s would be pretty close to each other....

I observed the 4th gear ratio of the BMW 330 automatic and it was at a ratio of 1 (which incidentally is ideal for acceleration)....in the BMW, only the 5th gear is an over-drive gear....while in the TL/CL-s, both the 4th and 5th are overdrive gears that would only help in bettering your mileage....so if you race, you will find that the instant the TL/CL-s hits the 4th gear, the race would be over....the BMW 330 automatic if you notice, will have slightly worse mileage than the TL/CL-s even though the engine is smaller, less powerful (than the CL-s) and carts around a lighter car.....want to know the reason why ? Compare the gear ratios of the BMW 330 and the TL/CL-s.....



------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

well, that pretty much proves my point again...there is still only one published 0-60 of 6.7 for the tl, and also that they will cling on to that 6.7.

but again with the flawed logic...

arthur, according to your logic, hp doesn't matter and it's all in the gearing...well then why don't they just slap that tranny onto an accord and you'll get a faster accord...hell, slap that tranny on a civic and we'll have fast civics too!!

wait!!! slap that mutha on an insight!!! you'll have the fastest hybrid on the planet!

this is logical...all being equal (hp/torque/gear ratios), the cl-s wouldn't be much faster than a tl...BUT all is NOT equal...cl-s has more torque and hp. (a weight difference of less than 100lbs is not significant enough to make a difference).

the 330 has less hp than a cl-s, but has a different gearing, so therefore again all is not equal and therefore bmw is just as fast or faster.

and don't say 35hp isn't significant...ask cl-s owners why they bought one over the cl-p.

i think you have "a loftier perception of your tl than is logically warranted..."

who's perception is more logically warranted? our deviation of .19 off of acura's time for the cl-s (6.59 vs. 6.4) or your 1.0 second for the tl (7.7 vs. 6.7)?

according to logic your 1.0sec off is more likely to be a fluke.


[This message has been edited by mrdeeno (edited 02-07-2001).]

 

35 HP is noticeable, but we are only looking at peak. What about the area under the curve, Has everyone forgotten that this is the major point that determines acceleration??

Simply, look at the charts, the CL-S begins earlier and ends later with a higher plateau. Add to this a nearly identical weight based on options and the outcome is inevitable.

 

mrdeeno:

HP matters....no dispute with that....but we are not comparing 100 hp vs 300 hp (200% increase)....we are comparing 225 horses with 260 horses (15% increase at the crank) and with identical gearing (as you said, if the gearing were different, we would have found a huge difference but since the gearing is the same, the difference in the timings of the 2 vehicles would be minimal).....there certainly is a difference...but not that significant...that's my point....and to think otherwise is your prerogative....I guess I am preaching to the choir, as far as this issue is concerned....


------------------
3.2TL with NAV

 

geezus!! ain't it dead, yet????
have some common sense would ya? 'identical' big 4-door car compared to 'identical' smaller 2-door car=???

why doesn't somebody just race, so we can get this over with?! could be worth a free lunch! :P

 

hey-how come the razz ain't workin???

 

ahh-there it is...WTF?

heheh-post '100' woopteedoo!!!

 

The TL is slower. I owned a 2000 TL. It's a nice car, don't get me wrong. It's just noticeably slower than my CLs. Not so much off the line, but on the freeway, around turns, and passing is just much more effective on the type s coupe.

ps this is way off topic (any maybe a little brash) but why do they have vinyl on the sides of the TL seats?!

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but they have vinyl on the sides of the seats (of the TL) for the exact same reason they have ridiculously fake "wood" (bowling ball trim ?!!!) on the interiors of the CL/CL-s. The reason ? Cost Cutting/comparitively low price of car...



------------------
3.2TL with NAV