I was talking about the bearded guy but,still have know clue.
Right over my head.
I thought he was a guy from some liquor commercial.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bc0WjTT0Ps

 

yea, that's some funny shit.
Now I kinda feel like this.
(everyone else in the car)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ephdPuu27yg

 

would i be interesting if i drank mexican tap water too?

i had a 71 chevelle that pulled a 4.0 0-60 and that was with 10k in the motor and the front wheels off the ground. in the cls with the box? mabey if you threw it out of a airplane and had a good tail wind....

 

So what you are saying is that your 260hp FWD CL-s is less than a second slower to 60 than a 480Hp AWD Porsche 911 twin turbo (3.7 sec 0-60 with a manual transmission). Sounds about right to me.

 

You didnt know Acura was making stealth supercars? Why do you think NSX sales slowed? The CL was faster and less then half the price!

 

check the nsx of my list

 

Simply asking some questions. As for my times in 0-60 running a 5.5-6 flat. Sorry didnt mean to give anyone a boner by simply posting times that i thought to be correct but seems that my friend is just a stoner and likes to mess with me all in good fun. So i was wrong oh well.

 

5.5 to 6.0? What did you use for timming this time?

Cause it took a professional driver all day to rip of a 5.9 in the CLS6.

Even a CT SC'ed CL had a hard time getting a 6.0.

Traction is the culprit.

 

Where did it say it took all day?

 

Im not going hunting for the article. If I did not read it from a credible source then I would have not said it.

I'm not saying a CLS 6 cant rip off a sub 6 second 0 to 60. But I really doubt a 5.5 with just a CAI and street tires.

 

Anyway, I think the stock michelins the car came with suck, that is probably why all the 0-60 times have so many variations in them.

 

yea it wouldn't be the wheel hop. all this info is on aftermarket tires.

btw some interesting quotes.

This is from car and driver
"The supercharged CL highlights the limitations of a front-wheel-drive chassis. In stock form, the CL is among the best-handling and -performing front-drivers, but throwing more power at it is asking the front wheels to do too much. That this CL retains its dignity says much for its underlying goodness, and about riding the brink of diminishing returns."

This is the sema s/c cl tested by C&D.
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $53,462 (base price*: $49,312)

ENGINE TYPE: supercharged SOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, Honda PGM-FI engine-control system with port fuel injection
Displacement: 196 cu in, 3210cc
Power (mfr's claim): 369 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Torque (mfr's claim): 302 lb-ft @ 5400 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 106.9 in Length: 192.0 in
Curb weight: 3500 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 23.6 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph 5.8 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.2 sec @ 104 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 176 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city driving: 19 mpg

This is from modified magazine.

"Actually, we drove the car in two configurations. First, when we performed instrumented testing, it was outfitted with Comptech springs and anti-roll bars, Koni dampers, Work wheels and Comptech's cat-back exhaust. Then, when we spent time driving it on the road several months later, it was fitted with Neuspeed springs, a Neuspeed rear anti-roll bar, another set of Koni dampers, but with the same valving, BBS wheels and a Neuspeed cat-back exhaust and short-throw shifter. Comptech's supercharger was in place for both tests, as were the BFGoodrich g-Force KDW tires. Therefore, the performance numbers in this article and the accompanying spec box were tallied with the car in configuration number one, and the on-road driving impressions are with configuration number two. We hope that's clear."

"Straight-line performance is better than stock, although the difference isn't as much as the dyno numbers suggest. The quarter-mile time comes down .3 seconds to 14.2 from 14.5 seconds. Trap speed is also better (97.9 mph stock vs. 101.7 mph in supercharged trim). The biggest problem is getting the 3,461 pound Acura out of the hole. Finding a launch rpm that results in the best compromise between wheelspin and engine bog isn't easy with a light flywheel taking much inertia from the drivetrain. More often than not, we ended up spinning the BFG rubber through second gear, which is fun, but not all that quick.

Still, much of the difference in the quarter-mile time is realized by 60 mph. Our stock CL hit that mark in 6.3 seconds, while the supercharged car did so in six seconds flat. Once the cruise missile is fully hooked up, which doesn't really happen until the end of second gear, the improvement is better. Fifty-to-70 acceleration was a full half-second quicker in the supercharged car, dropping from 3.2 to 2.7 seconds."

 

This is the sema s/c cl tested by C&D.
VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $53,462 (base price*: $49,312)

ENGINE TYPE: supercharged SOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, Honda PGM-FI engine-control system with port fuel injection
Displacement: 196 cu in, 3210cc
Power (mfr's claim): 369 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Torque (mfr's claim): 302 lb-ft @ 5400 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 106.9 in Length: 192.0 in
Curb weight: 3500 lb




Was that a CT SC?

After reading all that and the recent "im adding these mods soon and going to the 1/4 mile and hope to drop into the 13's" it shows that even a large boost in power does not equate to much better times. Looks like its hard to get this car faster through the 1/4.

 

Oh yeah, because some dude who works for car and driver gets into a car he has never driven before and runs a low 14 boosted. Must mean that that's all the car can do.

After all, it's not like people who own the car and drive it 800 times more have a better chance of pulling a much faster time?

 

Motorweek got 5.9 and 14.5 @ 96mph stock. Even they said that took many runs to get to that point. And judging by the trap speed, they had a decent launch.

I dont remember seeing any STOCK CLs post up low 14s. Ive seen plenty of intake/header times around 14.1 though.

5.5s to 60 is still a bit optimistic though with just an intake. Then again this isnt the most scientific method of timing, so there is definitely room for error.

 

Yes the sema cl had the comptech supercharger. What I take from this is that if you want faster times at track you should focus on traction and weight reduction, more so than power.

Some sticky slicks in front would help to as long as drivetrain can withstand the power and not snap an axle.

 

Thats a much better way of putting it. I could not have said it any better.

But i'm sure someone will SOON prove us all wrong with thier awsomness driving skills. LOL!