07 Type S feedback owners post
11-13-2006, 01:31 AM
#161
Advanced
Join Date: Sep 2006
Age: 36
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my TL
I love the way it is driving!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no complaints about anything at all, i love everything about the car
getting, tints, raingaurds, system with custom box installed, viper alarm,
and im not sure what else yet but once i get it done i will post pics ASAP!!!
no complaints about anything at all, i love everything about the car
getting, tints, raingaurds, system with custom box installed, viper alarm,
and im not sure what else yet but once i get it done i will post pics ASAP!!!
11-13-2006, 03:24 AM
#162
Instructor
Originally Posted by TLFourplay
I picked mine up on teusday. I tinted the windows so far, ordered the all weather mats (I am in the army so they will be needed), ordered the carbon fiberfront and rear console trim (should be here tomorrrow) and just got my 19" inspyre's put on yesterday. I will post pics with rims later after I get it cleaned up.
11-13-2006, 10:30 AM
#164
Originally Posted by TSX-S2000
What are you going to do with your stock wheels?
Keep em for now maybe for winter or the track or something. Until someone makes me a whorthwhile offer..
11-13-2006, 10:31 AM
#166
Originally Posted by PeterUbers
and may we never speak of them again....
I didnt really like th4m at first either but they have kind of grown on me.... Please dont flame me for liking them!
11-14-2006, 02:49 PM
#168
Instructor
Originally Posted by TLFourplay
Keep em for now maybe for winter or the track or something. Until someone makes me a whorthwhile offer..
I also like the styling and the color (hides the brake dust). I think the regular TL's 5-spoke wheels are a bit too plain and I'm not into anything too flashy.
11-14-2006, 04:18 PM
#169
7th Gear
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 52
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought a TL-S 2 weeks ago. Love the car so far. I am also a converted BMW owner... My '99 BMW was costing between $2k and $4k per year in repairs to electronic systems. Enough was enough. It was time to move on.
Anyway, the TL-S is a fun drive, and I can't wait to take it on the track next summer. The FWD may be a slight problem, but spending a weekend at road america (Alcarte Lake, WI - 15 turns!) will be a lot of fun.
Anyway, the TL-S is a fun drive, and I can't wait to take it on the track next summer. The FWD may be a slight problem, but spending a weekend at road america (Alcarte Lake, WI - 15 turns!) will be a lot of fun.
11-14-2006, 04:23 PM
#170
Safety Car
Originally Posted by PeterUbers
An Altima with a 3.5L engine, LESS WEIGHT, more hp and torque won't even run a 1/4 mile in 13.7 .... it does it in 14.3-14.5 range.... and that's with trusty Nissan torque ...
Aint' no TLS runnin 13.78
Aint' no TLS runnin 13.78
11-14-2006, 05:36 PM
#171
Intermediate
Join Date: Feb 2005
Age: 41
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TLFourplay
I didnt really like th4m at first either but they have kind of grown on me.... Please dont flame me for liking them!
11-14-2006, 06:09 PM
#172
Registered Member
Originally Posted by pimpin-tl
Hmmm my 02 CL-S ran with just headers and mufflers 14.4 at 99.8 mphg
11-14-2006, 06:51 PM
#173
Safety Car
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
Nice, but you can't put headers on a 3G TL's heads.
The TL-S should dyno more than the older 3.2L CL-S plus in a manual I can easily see it hit 13.7 at that trap speed or faster. Traction will be the key.
11-14-2006, 10:44 PM
#174
2003 NBP TL-S
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Atlanta GA
Age: 38
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by drtoth
I cancelled my pre order, my dad's getting me a 335i in spring 
I wanted a TL but for my situation is just a forced buy, especially when the J32A2 >J motors except the new TL-S and RL motor.
I'm happy with 260 HP and 228 LB/tq with an auto. Atleast for me it's quick as hell.
I wanted a TL but for my situation is just a forced buy, especially when the J32A2 >J motors except the new TL-S and RL motor.
I'm happy with 260 HP and 228 LB/tq with an auto. Atleast for me it's quick as hell.
11-14-2006, 10:56 PM
#175
2003 NBP TL-S
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Atlanta GA
Age: 38
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AcuraTLboi
wow.. i'd take the 335i ANYDAY over the TL...
11-14-2006, 10:58 PM
#176
2003 NBP TL-S
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Atlanta GA
Age: 38
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AcuraDriver2006
yes, the 335i is faster than the Type S.
Having driven both cars, you ought to know the numbers on both cars. You can see below here. The TL type S comes in no where near the numbers in 2007 3350. Even my S/C TL would still be slower.
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...35i-sedan.html
Paired with the standard six-speed transmission, this is sufficient to propel the 3616-pound 335i to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, with essentially no turbo lag—the tiny hesitation between the time the driver punches the throttle and the onset of full boost. That’s a tenth quicker to 60 mph than was the slightly lighter 335i coupe, an advantage the sedan held through the quarter-mile (13.5 seconds at 106 mph).
Remember, don't let the "type S" badge and the new gadges fool you. The type S only has 286hp, that's barely 243hp at the wheel on a dyno. It's quick, but it isn't BMW 335i fast.
Having driven both cars, you ought to know the numbers on both cars. You can see below here. The TL type S comes in no where near the numbers in 2007 3350. Even my S/C TL would still be slower.
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...35i-sedan.html
Paired with the standard six-speed transmission, this is sufficient to propel the 3616-pound 335i to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, with essentially no turbo lag—the tiny hesitation between the time the driver punches the throttle and the onset of full boost. That’s a tenth quicker to 60 mph than was the slightly lighter 335i coupe, an advantage the sedan held through the quarter-mile (13.5 seconds at 106 mph).
Remember, don't let the "type S" badge and the new gadges fool you. The type S only has 286hp, that's barely 243hp at the wheel on a dyno.
It's quick, but it isn't BMW 335i fast.
11-15-2006, 10:02 AM
#177
Back to the 07 TL. Read the thread title before posting about BMW's etc.
11-18-2006, 09:21 PM
#178
8th Gear
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question on gear ratios that I hope the knowledgeable and technical-minded (like SouthernBoy et al) could answer for me.
The ratios are listed as follows (AT/MT):
1st 2.70/3.93
2nd 1.61/2.48
3rd 1.07/1.70
4th 0.69/1.25
5th 0.49/0.98
6th NA/0.77
Rev 1.89/4.01
Final drive ratio 4.31/3.29
So here are my questions:
1) Fully recognizing that the MT is meant to be more of a "drag", if you know what I mean, why is there such a HUGE discrepancy? Specifically, why does 6th gear have to be such a "high" 0.77, when the top gear for the AT is 0.49?? No wonder the manual gets worse mileage? Given these numbers, does that mean I could/should start my MT in 2nd gear? What are the pro's and con's in using too high a gear, either at start or when you're cruising (using, say, 5th gear when you're only going 32 MPH)
2) Why such a huge discrepancy between the reverse ratio of the AT vs. the MT? Surely, you're not going to need THAT kind of pick-up going backwards!?!
3) Why does the final ratio make no sense (with the MT sporting a LOWER number than the AT), or do I just not know what the heck I'm talking about.
Your expertise in shedding light on this would be much appreciated.
Cheers...
The ratios are listed as follows (AT/MT):
1st 2.70/3.93
2nd 1.61/2.48
3rd 1.07/1.70
4th 0.69/1.25
5th 0.49/0.98
6th NA/0.77
Rev 1.89/4.01
Final drive ratio 4.31/3.29
So here are my questions:
1) Fully recognizing that the MT is meant to be more of a "drag", if you know what I mean, why is there such a HUGE discrepancy? Specifically, why does 6th gear have to be such a "high" 0.77, when the top gear for the AT is 0.49?? No wonder the manual gets worse mileage? Given these numbers, does that mean I could/should start my MT in 2nd gear? What are the pro's and con's in using too high a gear, either at start or when you're cruising (using, say, 5th gear when you're only going 32 MPH)
2) Why such a huge discrepancy between the reverse ratio of the AT vs. the MT? Surely, you're not going to need THAT kind of pick-up going backwards!?!
3) Why does the final ratio make no sense (with the MT sporting a LOWER number than the AT), or do I just not know what the heck I'm talking about.
Your expertise in shedding light on this would be much appreciated.
Cheers...
11-19-2006, 09:51 AM
#179
Actually, my '05 6MT has the same EPA estimated fuel mileage for auto vs. manual
of 20/29. Gear ratios are the same as you listed. The 6MT is 98 lbs. lighter with slightly better weight distribution.
I would have liked to have seen Acura put 1st gear around the 3.0 mark, in my opinion. At 60 mph, the revs on the 6MT are only slightly higher than the auto. due to the final drive ratio balancing things out in top gear for both cars.
Hopefully southernboy can help us out on the reverse gear differences. I'll bet is has to do with the synchros.
Sorry if were are drifting off topic.
of 20/29. Gear ratios are the same as you listed. The 6MT is 98 lbs. lighter with slightly better weight distribution.
I would have liked to have seen Acura put 1st gear around the 3.0 mark, in my opinion. At 60 mph, the revs on the 6MT are only slightly higher than the auto. due to the final drive ratio balancing things out in top gear for both cars.
Hopefully southernboy can help us out on the reverse gear differences. I'll bet is has to do with the synchros.
Sorry if were are drifting off topic.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
1fatcrxnem1
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
22
06-01-2018 01:23 AM
BlkTxAcuraTypeS
Member Cars for Sale
3
10-18-2015 08:05 PM
sockr1
Car Parts for Sale
22
10-01-2015 01:31 AM
