check this TL-P vs celica GT post
09-20-2002, 04:23 PM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Orange County, CAL
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-20-2002, 04:24 PM
#2
Racer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Orange County, CAL
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2003 TL
Engine: 3.2-liter V6 SOHC
Horsepower: 225 @ 5600
Torque: 216 @ 4700
Weight: 3492 lbs (1584 kg)
Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec.
1/4-mile in 16.6 sec.
Top Speed: 124 mph
Braking: 60-0 mph in 155 ft.
Road Holding: 0.80 g.
Fuel Economy: 20 (City) / 32 (Highway)
are these specs true?
the 8.6?
edit. and these were msn car point
Engine: 3.2-liter V6 SOHC
Horsepower: 225 @ 5600
Torque: 216 @ 4700
Weight: 3492 lbs (1584 kg)
Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec.
1/4-mile in 16.6 sec.
Top Speed: 124 mph
Braking: 60-0 mph in 155 ft.
Road Holding: 0.80 g.
Fuel Economy: 20 (City) / 32 (Highway)
are these specs true?
the 8.6?
edit. and these were msn car point
09-20-2002, 06:04 PM
#4
O.G.
Originally posted by turbox777
2003 TL
Engine: 3.2-liter V6 SOHC
Horsepower: 225 @ 5600
Torque: 216 @ 4700
Weight: 3492 lbs (1584 kg)
2003 TL
Engine: 3.2-liter V6 SOHC
Horsepower: 225 @ 5600
Torque: 216 @ 4700
Weight: 3492 lbs (1584 kg)
BTW, they probably had 2 sumo guys driving the car.
09-20-2002, 06:51 PM
#5
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: des plaines, IL
Age: 45
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by turbox777
2003 TL
Engine: 3.2-liter V6 SOHC
Horsepower: 225 @ 5600
Torque: 216 @ 4700
Weight: 3492 lbs (1584 kg)
Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec.
1/4-mile in 16.6 sec.
Top Speed: 124 mph
Braking: 60-0 mph in 155 ft.
Road Holding: 0.80 g.
Fuel Economy: 20 (City) / 32 (Highway)
are these specs true?
the 8.6?
edit. and these were msn car point
2003 TL
Engine: 3.2-liter V6 SOHC
Horsepower: 225 @ 5600
Torque: 216 @ 4700
Weight: 3492 lbs (1584 kg)
Acceleration: 0-60 mph in 8.6 sec.
1/4-mile in 16.6 sec.
Top Speed: 124 mph
Braking: 60-0 mph in 155 ft.
Road Holding: 0.80 g.
Fuel Economy: 20 (City) / 32 (Highway)
are these specs true?
the 8.6?
edit. and these were msn car point
TLP: 0 to 60: 6.9 to 7.1
1/4mile: 15.5
on a good day
09-21-2002, 09:14 PM
#6
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: So. Fla
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a good day..Maybe going down hill in cold weather with wind behind your back and a stipped down car with nothing but driver and a seat to sit in..Please torqueaholic..your numbers are closer to TLS numbers..A TLP realistically runs about 7.8 to 8.2 and a quarter at about high 15's low 16's..0-60 in 6.9-7.1, man your smoking something.
09-21-2002, 09:25 PM
#7
'99 Acura 3.2TL
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Quebec
Age: 37
Posts: 4,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recognize those numbers! they are from daniel heurad @ carpont.msn.com! Ignore them! that old fart has the most ridicuolous numbers on the net!! he got like high 15's for the Honda S2000 and rsx type S. He described them as having dissappointing performance!
Daniel Heraud is a ****er! He doesnt know anything about cars. i even saw 8.9sec 0-60 for a TL..... the tl can do low 7s...
I got his book (in french) and almost half of the numbers in the book are not true.....!
@cUr@-TL
Trending Topics
09-21-2002, 09:42 PM
#8
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: des plaines, IL
Age: 45
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by FLAcuraTLS
On a good day..Maybe going down hill in cold weather with wind behind your back and a stipped down car with nothing but driver and a seat to sit in..Please torqueaholic..your numbers are closer to TLS numbers..A TLP realistically runs about 7.8 to 8.2 and a quarter at about high 15's low 16's..0-60 in 6.9-7.1, man your smoking something.
On a good day..Maybe going down hill in cold weather with wind behind your back and a stipped down car with nothing but driver and a seat to sit in..Please torqueaholic..your numbers are closer to TLS numbers..A TLP realistically runs about 7.8 to 8.2 and a quarter at about high 15's low 16's..0-60 in 6.9-7.1, man your smoking something.
HIT THIS LINK, and get educated:
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadt...8/article.html
09-22-2002, 12:44 AM
#9
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Age: 45
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only people that give realistic 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are Car and Driver. Subscribe to Car and Driver or go to caranddriver.com for performance results. They're right on the money pretty much every time.
09-22-2002, 11:30 AM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: des plaines, IL
Age: 45
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by SergeyM
Car and Driver got 7.6 and 16.0 for TL-S in October's issue and it is in line with 8.6/16.6 fot TL-P. It does look like 2003 cars are somewhat slower.
Car and Driver got 7.6 and 16.0 for TL-S in October's issue and it is in line with 8.6/16.6 fot TL-P. It does look like 2003 cars are somewhat slower.
09-22-2002, 01:22 PM
#12
I'M Rich Beeyoch!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
settle down guys we need to get accurate numbers from an accurate source, then and only then will we know the true numbers. car and driver is a start but let's get some more info! I'll do what i can on my end and let's see what we come up with. HOLLA!
09-22-2002, 04:15 PM
#13
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: nYc
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt the TL-Type S can run 0-60 in 7 seconds. It should run about low-mid 6.0 seconds. The TL should run about 7.0 seconds. There's no freakin way that those baby's run like 8 seconds. Not even my old fart volvo go so slow. Trust me. Your TL should win, even tho the GT is manual, and even though it mite get a lil headstart, your TL engine will kick in, in the beginning of the 2nd gear - 3rd gear, and say bye bye to mr. GT.
09-22-2002, 09:24 PM
#14
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: So. Fla
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey torqueaholic, if you can find a printed time of a 2002 TL doing 0-60 anywhere near 6.9-7.1(without mods of course), TAKE A PICTURE and frame it, because that's a miracle. Once you have some proof, then you can "educate" me, otherwise, educate yourself buddy.
09-22-2002, 10:29 PM
#16
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: detroit, michigan
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look here, its from yahoo, and it tells you what road and track, car and driver and some other sources say about the 2002 TL Type S and the TL.
http://www.autosite.com/new/grabbag/perform/2595.asp
good enough proof FLAcuraTLS????
you might want to stop running your mouth until you actually have good evidence. and not some random F**K on the internet.
http://www.autosite.com/new/grabbag/perform/2595.asp
good enough proof FLAcuraTLS????
you might want to stop running your mouth until you actually have good evidence. and not some random F**K on the internet.
09-22-2002, 10:40 PM
#17
Comptech Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8.6 sec maybe with traction control on and without torque braking...
if not then it's capable of doing low 7s...
if u want the fastest time look at motor trend...they always get teh fastest time somehow...
if not then it's capable of doing low 7s...
if u want the fastest time look at motor trend...they always get teh fastest time somehow...
09-23-2002, 02:18 AM
#18
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: So. Fla
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy GaddAMIT, your stats show a 7.40 and a 6.70..wow all that shows is that we are both right. I honestly don't know how MT got a time of 6.7 0-60 and a 15.2 in the 1/4mi in a TLP, but IMO the 7.40 from C&D sounds more realistic. 7.40 is not 6.9-7.1 as torqueaholic said now is it? Which is all I was saying, so just relax.
09-23-2002, 08:37 AM
#19
Wow... quoting stats from magazines and arguing about it... that will get you far
Seriously.... there's no point in magazine racing as different people will get different times on any given day. I agree that 8.6 0-60 is pretty damn slow... but arguing over the accurate times from 80 different sources will just run you in circles. Get to a track and run. Get a slip with a 1/4 mile time and you can figure out for yourself how you stack up against the magazine times....
Seriously.... there's no point in magazine racing as different people will get different times on any given day. I agree that 8.6 0-60 is pretty damn slow... but arguing over the accurate times from 80 different sources will just run you in circles. Get to a track and run. Get a slip with a 1/4 mile time and you can figure out for yourself how you stack up against the magazine times....
09-23-2002, 06:09 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: des plaines, IL
Age: 45
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by FLAcuraTLS
Easy GaddAMIT, your stats show a 7.40 and a 6.70..wow all that shows is that we are both right. I honestly don't know how MT got a time of 6.7 0-60 and a 15.2 in the 1/4mi in a TLP, but IMO the 7.40 from C&D sounds more realistic. 7.40 is not 6.9-7.1 as torqueaholic said now is it? Which is all I was saying, so just relax.
Easy GaddAMIT, your stats show a 7.40 and a 6.70..wow all that shows is that we are both right. I honestly don't know how MT got a time of 6.7 0-60 and a 15.2 in the 1/4mi in a TLP, but IMO the 7.40 from C&D sounds more realistic. 7.40 is not 6.9-7.1 as torqueaholic said now is it? Which is all I was saying, so just relax.
If you want me to go with the 7.4 time of car and driver, then I will as long as you admit that there is absolutely NO difference between the TL and the TYPES. WHY? well because in the current issue of car and driver, they clocked the type s at 7.4!!! with a 16.0 1/4mile!!!! making it SLOWER than the regular TL!
I think I'll stick with motortrend!
09-23-2002, 06:12 PM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: des plaines, IL
Age: 45
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by juniorbean
Wow... quoting stats from magazines and arguing about it... that will get you far
Seriously.... there's no point in magazine racing as different people will get different times on any given day. I agree that 8.6 0-60 is pretty damn slow... but arguing over the accurate times from 80 different sources will just run you in circles. Get to a track and run. Get a slip with a 1/4 mile time and you can figure out for yourself how you stack up against the magazine times....
Wow... quoting stats from magazines and arguing about it... that will get you far
Seriously.... there's no point in magazine racing as different people will get different times on any given day. I agree that 8.6 0-60 is pretty damn slow... but arguing over the accurate times from 80 different sources will just run you in circles. Get to a track and run. Get a slip with a 1/4 mile time and you can figure out for yourself how you stack up against the magazine times....
09-23-2002, 08:23 PM
#22
GO SEMINOLES!!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Orlando, FL & Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i've never been to the track, but my friend has a 240sx, lightly modded, he runs mid 15s everytime, i've raced him many times most of the time i'll have a car on him, the closest race was when he kept up until 3rd, mid to low 15s for a TL sounds realistic to me...
09-23-2002, 09:24 PM
#23
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: So. Fla
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torqueaholic..good point, and i was proved wrong. I mean, I don't think the 6.7 is going to be a number that can be duplicated numerous times, but none the less it exists, and I stand corrected. But realistically, I honestly think mid 7's is more of a real world number for the TLP. As far as GaddAmit losing his temper, thats just childish. Some people just get too heated on the internet.
09-23-2002, 09:35 PM
#24
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: des plaines, IL
Age: 45
Posts: 935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by FLAcuraTLS
Torqueaholic..good point, and i was proved wrong. I mean, I don't think the 6.7 is going to be a number that can be duplicated numerous times, but none the less it exists, and I stand corrected. But realistically, I honestly think mid 7's is more of a real world number for the TLP. As far as GaddAmit losing his temper, thats just childish. Some people just get too heated on the internet.
Torqueaholic..good point, and i was proved wrong. I mean, I don't think the 6.7 is going to be a number that can be duplicated numerous times, but none the less it exists, and I stand corrected. But realistically, I honestly think mid 7's is more of a real world number for the TLP. As far as GaddAmit losing his temper, thats just childish. Some people just get too heated on the internet.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
orkoTL
4G TL Problems & Fixes
107
09-28-2017 09:12 AM
urbtsx
1G TSX Performance Parts & Modifications
9
03-04-2017 06:53 PM
BlkTxAcuraTypeS
Member Cars for Sale
3
10-18-2015 08:05 PM
