TL-S slower to 60
02-08-2001 | 06:18 PM
#41
Meat Popsicle
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
From: Chicagoland, Illinois
I drove the TL and CLS back to back, by myself, when I was buying last summer. I beat them both pretty hard, at the invitation of the Acura dealer. Absolutely no doubt that the CLS was much quicker.
The difference was most profound when using SS at about 40 mph, down shift a gear and punch it. The CLS rips. TL was much less explosive.
I expect the TLS to be just as fast. Especially when measuring by the seat of your pants. I choose CLS for two reasons. That sweet motor, and the no sedan on earth looks as good as a similar coupe. I could use the 4 door, but the power assist seats make rear access to the 8 year old no problemo-
When we need space, we take the Sienna. If you need 4 doors, get them. That doesn't make that the only logical choice for everyone. I dare say that if travel with 4 adults and luggage is a priority, you should have bought an Avalon. The TL ain't that big.
I think that A.Hunter is way to obsessed with the "my do is better than your dog" syndrom than a grown man should be.
Outside of this BB, nobody gives a shit, and neither of these cars is a runner. They are designed to be fast efficient and comfortable.
You want fast, quit f**king around and get a V8.
No offense buddy.
------------------
lilfeat
01 CLS Red No Spoiler, No
Nav, No Payments
The difference was most profound when using SS at about 40 mph, down shift a gear and punch it. The CLS rips. TL was much less explosive.
I expect the TLS to be just as fast. Especially when measuring by the seat of your pants. I choose CLS for two reasons. That sweet motor, and the no sedan on earth looks as good as a similar coupe. I could use the 4 door, but the power assist seats make rear access to the 8 year old no problemo-
When we need space, we take the Sienna. If you need 4 doors, get them. That doesn't make that the only logical choice for everyone. I dare say that if travel with 4 adults and luggage is a priority, you should have bought an Avalon. The TL ain't that big.
I think that A.Hunter is way to obsessed with the "my do is better than your dog" syndrom than a grown man should be.
Outside of this BB, nobody gives a shit, and neither of these cars is a runner. They are designed to be fast efficient and comfortable.
You want fast, quit f**king around and get a V8.
No offense buddy.
------------------
lilfeat
01 CLS Red No Spoiler, No
Nav, No Payments
02-08-2001 | 06:20 PM
#42
Meat Popsicle
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
From: Chicagoland, Illinois
I drove the TL and CLS back to back, by myself, when I was buying last summer. I beat them both pretty hard, at the invitation of the Acura dealer. Absolutely no doubt that the CLS was much quicker.
The difference was most profound when using SS at about 40 mph, down shift a gear and punch it. The CLS rips. TL was much less explosive.
I expect the TLS to be just as fast. Especially when measuring by the seat of your pants. I choose CLS for two reasons. That sweet motor, and the no sedan on earth looks as good as a similar coupe. I could use the 4 door, but the power assist seats make rear access to the 8 year old no problemo-
When we need space, we take the Sienna. If you need 4 doors, get them. That doesn't make that the only logical choice for everyone. I dare say that if travel with 4 adults and luggage is a priority, you should have bought an Avalon. The TL ain't that big.
I think that A.Hunter is way to obsessed with the "my do is better than your dog" syndrom than a grown man should be.
Outside of this BB, nobody gives a shit, and neither of these cars is a runner. They are designed to be fast efficient and comfortable.
You want fast, quit f**king around and get a V8.
No offense buddy.
------------------
lilfeat
01 CLS Red No Spoiler, No
Nav, No Payments
The difference was most profound when using SS at about 40 mph, down shift a gear and punch it. The CLS rips. TL was much less explosive.
I expect the TLS to be just as fast. Especially when measuring by the seat of your pants. I choose CLS for two reasons. That sweet motor, and the no sedan on earth looks as good as a similar coupe. I could use the 4 door, but the power assist seats make rear access to the 8 year old no problemo-
When we need space, we take the Sienna. If you need 4 doors, get them. That doesn't make that the only logical choice for everyone. I dare say that if travel with 4 adults and luggage is a priority, you should have bought an Avalon. The TL ain't that big.
I think that A.Hunter is way to obsessed with the "my do is better than your dog" syndrom than a grown man should be.
Outside of this BB, nobody gives a shit, and neither of these cars is a runner. They are designed to be fast efficient and comfortable.
You want fast, quit f**king around and get a V8.
No offense buddy.
------------------
lilfeat
01 CLS Red No Spoiler, No
Nav, No Payments
02-08-2001 | 07:03 PM
#43
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 3
From: Lower Nazzie, Pa
the horse is dead, but i feel like kicking it one more time as i thought i heard arth...i mean the horse "nay".
yes, we are talking a difference of 35 horse between the cl-s and tl.
let's use ananolgies (data is from honda):
2000 Civic EX cpe(manual): 127hp, 0-60 in 8.5
2000 Civic SI cpe(manual): 160hp, 0-60 in 7.2
a difference of 33hp between 2 similarly weighted and transmissioned cars yielded a difference of 1.3 sec to 60.
another one (data from acura)
2000 integra gsr sdn (manual): 170hp, 7.7 (slower than the si 'cuz it's not the coupe, it's the sedan integra).
2000 integra ls sdn (manual): 140hp, 8.8
difference of 30hp yielded a 1.1 sec difference to 60.
hmm, there seems to be a correlation between hp and acceleration (and speed can be derived from acceleration), it seems that all being equal, there is an approx. 1sec gain for every 30hp.
the cl-s has 35hp over the cl-p/tl, so 0-60 a little over 1 sec better is expected for the cl-s, considering these cars are very close in weight and have identical gearing.
(which is reflected in acura's claims of 6.59 for the cl-s vs. 7.7 for the tl)
but according to arthur's logic, it's only 0.11 sec better (using acura's 6.59 for the cl-s and arthur's 6.7 for the tl), or 0.3 sec better (using motortrend's 6.4 for the cl-s). unless acura's cars defy logic and physics, this doesn't hold.
and you can't argue that 1 sec isn't big...it's really big in car-time, that's why acc. times are measured to the 1/10th (and sometimes even 1/100th); and considering 1 sec is a large difference, then 35hp is also a large difference.
yes, we are talking a difference of 35 horse between the cl-s and tl.
let's use ananolgies (data is from honda):
2000 Civic EX cpe(manual): 127hp, 0-60 in 8.5
2000 Civic SI cpe(manual): 160hp, 0-60 in 7.2
a difference of 33hp between 2 similarly weighted and transmissioned cars yielded a difference of 1.3 sec to 60.
another one (data from acura)
2000 integra gsr sdn (manual): 170hp, 7.7 (slower than the si 'cuz it's not the coupe, it's the sedan integra).
2000 integra ls sdn (manual): 140hp, 8.8
difference of 30hp yielded a 1.1 sec difference to 60.
hmm, there seems to be a correlation between hp and acceleration (and speed can be derived from acceleration), it seems that all being equal, there is an approx. 1sec gain for every 30hp.
the cl-s has 35hp over the cl-p/tl, so 0-60 a little over 1 sec better is expected for the cl-s, considering these cars are very close in weight and have identical gearing.
(which is reflected in acura's claims of 6.59 for the cl-s vs. 7.7 for the tl)
but according to arthur's logic, it's only 0.11 sec better (using acura's 6.59 for the cl-s and arthur's 6.7 for the tl), or 0.3 sec better (using motortrend's 6.4 for the cl-s). unless acura's cars defy logic and physics, this doesn't hold.
and you can't argue that 1 sec isn't big...it's really big in car-time, that's why acc. times are measured to the 1/10th (and sometimes even 1/100th); and considering 1 sec is a large difference, then 35hp is also a large difference.
02-08-2001 | 09:40 PM
#44
Intermediate
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mrdeeno:
the horse is dead, but i feel like kicking it one more time as i thought i heard arth...i mean the horse "nay".
yes, we are talking a difference of 35 horse between the cl-s and tl.
let's use ananolgies (data is from honda):
2000 Civic EX cpe(manual): 127hp, 0-60 in 8.5
2000 Civic SI cpe(manual): 160hp, 0-60 in 7.2
a difference of 33hp between 2 similarly weighted and transmissioned cars yielded a difference of 1.3 sec to 60.
another one (data from acura)
2000 integra gsr sdn (manual): 170hp, 7.7 (slower than the si 'cuz it's not the coupe, it's the sedan integra).
2000 integra ls sdn (manual): 140hp, 8.8
difference of 30hp yielded a 1.1 sec difference to 60.
hmm, there seems to be a correlation between hp and acceleration (and speed can be derived from acceleration), it seems that all being equal, there is an approx. 1sec gain for every 30hp.
the cl-s has 35hp over the cl-p/tl, so 0-60 a little over 1 sec better is expected for the cl-s, considering these cars are very close in weight and have identical gearing.
(which is reflected in acura's claims of 6.59 for the cl-s vs. 7.7 for the tl)
but according to arthur's logic, it's only 0.11 sec better (using acura's 6.59 for the cl-s and arthur's 6.7 for the tl), or 0.3 sec better (using motortrend's 6.4 for the cl-s). unless acura's cars defy logic and physics, this doesn't hold.
and you can't argue that 1 sec isn't big...it's really big in car-time, that's why acc. times are measured to the 1/10th (and sometimes even 1/100th); and considering 1 sec is a large difference, then 35hp is also a large difference.
</font>
the horse is dead, but i feel like kicking it one more time as i thought i heard arth...i mean the horse "nay".
yes, we are talking a difference of 35 horse between the cl-s and tl.
let's use ananolgies (data is from honda):
2000 Civic EX cpe(manual): 127hp, 0-60 in 8.5
2000 Civic SI cpe(manual): 160hp, 0-60 in 7.2
a difference of 33hp between 2 similarly weighted and transmissioned cars yielded a difference of 1.3 sec to 60.
another one (data from acura)
2000 integra gsr sdn (manual): 170hp, 7.7 (slower than the si 'cuz it's not the coupe, it's the sedan integra).
2000 integra ls sdn (manual): 140hp, 8.8
difference of 30hp yielded a 1.1 sec difference to 60.
hmm, there seems to be a correlation between hp and acceleration (and speed can be derived from acceleration), it seems that all being equal, there is an approx. 1sec gain for every 30hp.
the cl-s has 35hp over the cl-p/tl, so 0-60 a little over 1 sec better is expected for the cl-s, considering these cars are very close in weight and have identical gearing.
(which is reflected in acura's claims of 6.59 for the cl-s vs. 7.7 for the tl)
but according to arthur's logic, it's only 0.11 sec better (using acura's 6.59 for the cl-s and arthur's 6.7 for the tl), or 0.3 sec better (using motortrend's 6.4 for the cl-s). unless acura's cars defy logic and physics, this doesn't hold.
and you can't argue that 1 sec isn't big...it's really big in car-time, that's why acc. times are measured to the 1/10th (and sometimes even 1/100th); and considering 1 sec is a large difference, then 35hp is also a large difference.
</font>
Here are the ratios:
Civic gear ratios:
Gear----SI---------EX
1st-----3.23-------3.25
2nd-----2.105------1.894
3rd-----1.48-------1.259
4th-----1.107------0.937
5th-----0.848------0.771
Final---4.40-------4.25
Integra Gear Ratios:
Gear------LS--------GSR
1st------3.23-------3.23
2nd------1.90-------1.90
3rd------1.269------1.360
4th------0.966------1.034
5th------0.714------0.787
Final----4.266------4.40
Wow, you have produced fantastic examples to prove my point ....anyway, I will not be posting in this thread anymore to make a point that is moot (the TL and the CL-s have identical gear ratios ....
The horse is dead and is starting to smell....okay brothers, let us bury him....
------------------
3.2TL with NAV
02-08-2001 | 09:53 PM
#45
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 3
From: Lower Nazzie, Pa
i admit that my examples are technically wrong then.
but i'm still trying to figure out how you can claim most tl does 0-60 in 6.7. even acura won't admit that, but there is only 1 example yet you are convinced that it is not a fluke.
hey i can admit i'm wrong, which is more than i can say for others.
but i'm still trying to figure out how you can claim most tl does 0-60 in 6.7. even acura won't admit that, but there is only 1 example yet you are convinced that it is not a fluke.
hey i can admit i'm wrong, which is more than i can say for others.
02-09-2001 | 11:48 AM
#48
Intermediate
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mrdeeno:
i admit that my examples are technically wrong then.
but i'm still trying to figure out how you can claim most tl does 0-60 in 6.7. even acura won't admit that, but there is only 1 example yet you are convinced that it is not a fluke.
hey i can admit i'm wrong, which is more than i can say for others.</font>
i admit that my examples are technically wrong then.
but i'm still trying to figure out how you can claim most tl does 0-60 in 6.7. even acura won't admit that, but there is only 1 example yet you are convinced that it is not a fluke.
hey i can admit i'm wrong, which is more than i can say for others.</font>
I am sorry that I am posting once again...but this is to clarify a point....
Horsepower and Torque measured at the crank can sound impressive, but they cannot do squat, if you cannot get the power to the ground. Appropriate gearing is paramount to getting the power/torque generated by the engine to the ground. With the power characteristics of the CL-S engine (which is phenomenal, let me point out), if the gearing was done well (say something similar to the BMW 330 Automatic ??), then you would be obtaining 0-60 figures of 6.0 to 6.1 with a slight penalty in your mileage....but Acura chose to share the already developed 3.2TL 5-speed transmission with the CL-s even though the CL-s engine has different power/torque characteristics.....
Here are the gear ratios of the TL/CL/CL-s:
1st-----2.563
2nd-----1.552
3rd-----1.021
4th-----0.653
5th-----0.470
Reverse-1.846
Final---4.428
You would notice that in the above, the 4th and the 5th gears are overdrive gears (ratio less than 1.00) which will help you in your mileage but hurt your acceleration...ideally the gear ratio should be at 1.00 (say the 4th gear, with more closely spaced lower gears) to get the most power to the ground for acceleration....and an over-drive 5th gear for mileage....
Interestingly, the Acura 3.5MDX has slightly different ratios (less overdriven 4th and 5th gears):
1st------2.563
2nd------1.552
3rd------1.021
4th------0.727
5th------0.520
Reverse--1.846
Final----4.428
For comparison, here are the gear ratios from the BMW manual (330 and 530 have the same manual gear ratios) and automatic 5-speed transmissions:
Gear--------Manual-----330Auto----530Auto
1st---------4.21--------3.67-------3.42
2nd---------2.49--------2.00-------2.22
3rd---------1.66--------1.41-------1.60
4th---------1.24--------1.00-------1.00
5th---------1.00--------0.74-------0.75
Reverse-----3.85--------4.10-------3.03
Final-------2.93--------3.46-------3.46
You will find that the BMW 4th gear ratios in the Automatic versions are at an aggressive 1.00 (4th gear) which will enable it to accelerate like a demon once it hits the 4th gear (90 + mph ??)...and the 5th gear will help the BMWs in their mileage....if the CL-s had "appropriate" gearing, they would humiliate the BMWs in acceleration with the additional power generated by the engine...
In all these cases, since most of these cars are automatics (except the manual BMWs), quite a bit of the available power is lost due to the torque converter....
No more posts from me in this thread.....
------------------
3.2TL with NAV
02-09-2001 | 11:52 AM
#49
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by silverESS:
*(snip)*
why doesn't somebody just race, so we can get this over with?! could be worth a free lunch!
:P 
</font>
*(snip)*
why doesn't somebody just race, so we can get this over with?! could be worth a free lunch!
:P </font>
Can't race yet... the TL-S isn't out until next month!!
Oh and BTW, most car companies go with the fake wood trim b/c real wood would fade and crack from sunlight and moisture.....
------------------
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
02-09-2001 | 11:54 AM
#50
Pro
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
From: DC Area
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by mrdeeno:
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.</font>
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.</font>
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MetalGearTypeS
3G TL Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
6
08-29-2016 08:28 PM
LogicWavelength
3G TL Photograph Gallery
33
11-01-2015 09:38 AM
