Guest

Hi I am new here. I have a question for you guys. I was reading the MotoTrend magazine yesterday. TL-S got 6.28 sec. from 0-60 while CL-S got 6.4 sec. How is that possible? I thought they both have the same engine. CL-S is lighter than TL-S right?

Lrpba300

No, I think the new 2002 Tl-S is 100 pounds lighter than the CL-S. Do a search on the board for the subject. It was discussed resently.

------------------
2000 3.2 TL Laguna Green
29% window tint, Clear bra, no nav
225/50/16 Aqua-Flow GTW's on OEM wheels
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/lrpba300?...l=fld3&.src=ph

PeterUbers

iTrader: (1)

Actually -- the weights are nearly identical -- I don't even think there is a 100lb. difference!

They perform the same folks -- given different weather conditions, different acceleration techniques (i.e. brake torquing), and different pavement/tire considerations, both cars will be a dead heat on the same track in the same conditions w/ the same driving style. And even IF they are off by 2 "ticks" .. what does that amount to once you hit 100 mph? ... half a bumper?

hunter001

The timings of these two nearly identical cars - identical engine, transmission, weight - etc., would assumably be identical. How are the aerodynamics of these cars ? Are they identical ? That could account for the couple of ticks.... Also, Road and Track mentioned that the TL-s felt more planted to the ground than the CL-s, maybe due to its longer wheelbase...

------------------
2000 Naples Gold 3.2TL/Navi - Factory Stock but with up-graded tires

Guest

Here are both curb weights (in pounds) from the Acura site:

CL-S w/o nav: 3510
TL-S w/o nav: 3558
--TL-S w/o nav heavier by 48 lbs--

CL-S with nav: 3525
TL-S with nav: 3574
--TL-S with nav heavier by 49 lbs--