Consumers Reports gives the 04 TL a rave review in their latest issue. CR rates the TL over all other cars in their "Upscale Sedans" category, including 330i, G35, C320, etc. They noted an ABSENCE of torque steer in the 5AT they tested, found the 60-0 braking to be better than the other three cars tested in the issue, and measured 0-60 at 6.7 sec. They also said the TL had the best acceleration and best mileage of the group. I know CR has a mixed reputation with some in this area, but I think they got this one right.

 

Consumer Reports Reviews the TL

 

Consumers Reports gives the 04 TL a rave review in their latest issue. I know CR has a mixed reputation with some in this area, but I think they got this one right. [/B][/QUOTE]


I feel they are THE most trusted source.

 

I feel they are THE most trusted source. [/B][/QUOTE]



save the low ball 0-60 numbers, that is

 

Well, that depends on your point of view. CR does their 0-60 testing in a consistant way: Car is sitting at normal idle (0 mph), and then they punch it to get the fastest time at 60 mph. That's a pretty accurate test for 98%+ of the drivers on the road.

Now, C&D (and other auto mags) with modify the way that they determine the 0-60 time based on the car's characteristics (where to rev to before dropping the clutch, breakaway point, etc.). This is not the way that most people drive, especially if they want to keep their cars for a while. If you want to drive your car on the track, then you're placing yourself in a very tiny percentage of drivers - and you could probably care less about what CR has to say, anyways.

CR's 0-60 test is more realistic. The G35 is still slower by 0.1 sec. The 330i is faster by 0.1 sec. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is slower by 3.4 seconds. Do any of these values really surprise you?

 

Well said like you said they test the way everyday drivers drive, the times are about right basing it on the 6.8 sec to 60 for the Maxima and G35 autos.

 

That is the right way to test 0-60 because its reproducible. C/D uses some voodoo "adjustments" which are total BS since temperature humidity and barometric pressure affect different cars differently! Thats why comparison tests are the only trustworhty way to compare cars accurately since the test is conducted at the same time under similar conditions. I will pay money to anyone who can find me a source of auto testing that is better than CR's.Yes their parameters are biased towards the average driver but in essence thats what essentially most people are. I don't see Schumaker or Fittipaldi at the supermarket very often!!!! BTW Their most highly ranked sports car is the S2000 I would like to see someone around here dispute that one!

 

CR is the best. Been reading it faithfully for 16 years. They give credit where it is due and aren't afraid to criticize either.

The last time I read an article this favorable about a car in CR was in 1989 or so when the LS400 came out.

 

I hold Consumer Report in very high regard, and love their real-world testing, but take the 0 - 60 methodology for what it is - still useful info, but a fairly uneducated way of launching a car. For someone who just plain doesn't care, or is just having fun, punching it off the line might be ok, but I'd love to line up next that kind of a driver in a race any day. My wife might launch a car like that, but I would think that most car enthusiasts that were looking to accelerate their performance sedan in an optimal way would choose another method. Just my opinion.

Also, I totally agree with the previous thread about comparison testing cars all at the same time. I live at an altitude where a 15 second 1/4 mile translates to roughly 14.5 at sea level!

 

I'm not sure that I understand your point.
If you are looking to "race", why on earth would you buy a TL?
You should be looking at a Corvette. The TL wasn't designed to be a race car or a sports car. A sporty sedan is how I would define it. As has been pointed out already, CR's review is for the average driver that will be driving these cars. Your wife sounds like she fits the profile perfectly.

Eneg

 

I guess my point was that some were calling the CR 0-60 time bogus because of the fact that it seemed abnormally high compared to what other tests were qouting. I very much respect CR and their methodology, but launching the car in the CR manner will never duplicate the maximum performance potential from any car, and thus never be as good as the times posted in Acura stats or more performance based reviews from magazines.

I am very likely going to get out of my Audi A4 and make the TL my next purchase. I also have a bit of a recreational racing past and very much appreciate the entire package the TL offers (including its performance characteristics). All I was trying to say was that if a 330 or G35 wanted to test this capabity at a stop-light (as has happened to at least a couple other posters), I would be more than willing.

Cheers

 

I'm especially pissed that Automobile Magazine (February issue) chose the BMW 3-Series for its "2004 All-Star" "Luxury Car Under $40k" category (page 68), when the TL kicks 3-Series ass, not only in athletic performance, but also especially in non-athletic performance such as cost, reliability, updated body design, fuel efficiency, etc. I'm writing them a letter objecting to thier myopic and lingering love affair with an out-of-date performer. They awarded the M3 in a different 2004 All-Star category, called "GT."

Part of this car mag myopia is probably the result of Acura's consistently poor marketing and communication with car mags, I'm sure. Acura should be flooding the car mags with freebee tricked out TLs (A-spec, etc.), long in advance of the annual best pick issues like this one. Acura marketing of the NSX is a well-known failure that IMO rivals the classic Edsel debacle of yore, and I'm hoping the TL has more success.