I know a lot of people want the sh awd option on the TL including myself, but do you think it would be a trade off for the added weight. We saw what the added weight did the 300 hp RL. I know it will with out a doubt handle much better but can TL lovers deal with a slower accelereation? Maybe if it did get sh awd they'll also add 280 or 290 hp. Just food for thought.

 

In my opinion I think you need to look at the competition to see what you should improve on in the future. With that being said, most of the TL's competition is RWD. As you probably know, FWD has the advantage of better traction in rain, snow, etc. but on dry pavement RWD can get off of the line faster. So if Acura put AWD in the TL the traction would become even better, but then acceleration would decrease (figuring Acura doesn't tune the engine for more torque). By looking at it in this way, FWD seems to be the safe choice giving the best balance of traction and acceleration. I would love the car to be RWD, but I think FWD is best suited for the TL. That's just my thoughts on the topic.

 

I'm almost certain Acura is going to bump up the power on the TL in the near future, and with this, SH-AWD is going to be added to the equation. At this point, 270 hp is getting toward the limit of power that should be going to the front wheels, and Acura will certainly not be changing the TL to a RWD setup.

Honda/Acura and Nissan/Infinity have been in a horsepower war over the last few years. With the 05 G35 being advertised with more power (although their horsepower ratings are questionable considering the maxima hp rating fiasco back in 2001-2002 and the questions of whether the 3.5 altima and maxima where putting down the same power) I see Honda comming back and raising the bar again. We'll have to see...........hopefully the TL type S will be reborn again.

 

nissaa sux!!!

salemen of Richmond nissn & infinii are not humans...

they 'r fukin shit bastards! coz they fukin' discriminate against ppl who look like no money~

 

and that's different from other dealerships how?

 

You in Richmond VA? Good lord, and you found better luck at Crown Acura? I flew to FL to get away from that.

 

Before the TL, the Audi A4 was high on my list. It can be had FWD and AWD. If I had gotten one, I decided I would not get AWD as it added 200 lbs and $2000 to the price. The extra weight reduces your acceleration noticably and reduces your mileage a couple mpg. And for $2K I would much rather have the Navigation system. Unless you really need it (Snowy mountains etc) IMHO it is not worth it.

However, the idea of the SH-AWD is intriguing. If you could get the TL with 300HP and SH-AWD combined with the ASPEC package, it would be real tempting simply to get the improved handling. The cost would likely be a lot more than $2K so it would be quite a premium. my 2 cents.

 

I'm still trying to figure what "nissaa, nissn and infinii" are!?!?

 

While it's subjective whether or not the HP in our 5.5G Maximas was as much as advertised (255hp), the torque level is definitely well above the 246lb-ft advertised. That said, it's still good for mid-upper 14s with the 4AT.

 

well back to topic,

i'm sure when sh-awd is added, more hp and tq will be added too.

 

Doesn't the weight shift to the rear favor RWD, esopecially going up hill? FWD does fine for starts on snow, yes, but I do not see any benefit in rain, where tires play the greatest role. Once a FWD loses rain traction, you are in deep, while with RWD you can often throttle steer.

That said, I prefer FWD on the TL, and think AWD would add complexity, weight , and cost for which i have little use. I have an Outback for winter, and an S2000 for real handling. Sedans are too much of a compromise, and if an AWD TL pushes 4000+ pounds, that is too much weight to inspire sporting use. (I have driven a E55 AMG enough to prove the latter to my complete satisfaction).

 

It is a practice known as, "Curbside Qualifying."

I have fallen victim to it many times, but too bad for the 3 salesmorons that lost 3 FULL STICKER purchases from me

MIIIPILOT

 

The E55 I love that car. What I would do to drive one.

 

I only wish Acura had a car to compete with the E55.

 

In terms of traction, FWD loses in every catagory against RWD except for some snow conditions. RWD is the traction king in virtually every area. As for AWD, I would not want it in the TL even if the increased the size of the engine to produce more horsepower and torque, simply because I would rather have that power available to me, not the AWD.

For a FWD car, the TL does just fine. And for a great all-around car, this is a good platform. I would not want the added weight and loss of power that an AWD costs.. I'd rather have the added power with the current configuration.. just increase the tire size to help offset the increase in wheel spin.

 

I really would have liked the AWD. Around here I think we are on a 3 day plowing cycle. They get the major roads right away, but sometimes it can be a while before they plow out the neighborhood.

Now, here is my unpopular opinion. I think the TL is already pushing the limits of the V6/FWD platform. Further, except on rare occasion, I probably don't push the engine to half what is is capable of. I have more than enough power and probably wouldn't even notice the performance loss of the weight for the AWD system.

I'd be willing to give up some horsepower for a little more low end torque to offset the feel(if there is one) of the added weight.

If I was looking for a sports car, I'd be driving a two seater. The TL is luxury sedan with a sporty feel. I smell a corvette in my future once I finish my PhD, so this is the around town sedan.

 

I'd like an RWD version but since that isn't going to happen I'd settle for an AWD version but do something to offset the weight penalty. Give me an aluminum hood for example like Audi did on my A6 so that the weight difference between an S4 with 2.7TT motor and A6 w/same motor and tranny was within about 150 pounds for a much bigger car.

Then I can have my cake and eat it too. If they can build a light car like the NSX apply some of that too the TL and drop in the SH-AWD and a bigger motor. Weight increase could be negligible. There are many places they could save weight on the car now by changing materials. I'd 5K more for a SH-AWD TL with a 3.5L motor that was substantially quicker and faster than our TL's but would go good in snow too.

As mentioned FWD SUCKS going up hill in the snow. Simple laws of physics can't help you with weight transfer. Harder you launch the car off the line the more it transfers to the rear as well.

 

You're right, thanks for correcting me. Rain traction didn't sound right to me when I wrote it, but I just left it in there. Anyway, the point of that was that in general FWD could be considered to have better traction than RWD. I kind of had this chart in my head that I was trying to explain:

_____Acceleration_____Traction
RWD____+1____________-1
FWD_____0____________0
AWD____-1____________+1

I don't even know if that chart makes sense or if its correct, but that's just how I look at RWD, FWD, and AWD when you compare them.

Before I made my original post, I hadn't actually read about SH-AWD, which sounds like a great system, but I personally think RWD with a good traction control system is still the way to go (figuring engineering/manufacturing cost of a new RWD system is not a problem). Then again, my dream TL would only be marketed to performance minded buyers.

 

To CoasterRider;

Your chart is wrong for your RWD in the traction column simply because is does not qualify traction conditions. RWD is far better in this are than FWD, with the exception of some snow conditions.

Also, in extreme cases, AWD isn't a match for RWD either, but those are, as stated extreme, and specific in nature.

 

My take is this... let's give the SH-AWD a wee bit of time on the Acura platform before jumping into it.

The added weight will kinda suck since it takes away from the "fun" aspects of the TL (i.e. zippiness). And you have to deal with reduced mpg, which in today's environment is also not a good thing.

I figure that given a couple of years (2-3) and adding about 30 - 50 HP, AWD will be a viable option for the TL.

but that's just me...

 

How about lets start at the E500 before we go there.

 

A competent AWD system has it all over RWD. First, because it can allocate energy to either axle as needed. This is one reason the Outback goes anywhere, and why Quattro was originally banned from racing until others caught up.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Road Rage

A competent AWD system has it all over RWD. First, because it can allocate energy to either axle as needed. This is one reason the Outback goes anywhere, and why Quattro was originally banned from racing until others caught up.

Road Rage this is not exactly true but true in many situations and becomes more important the higher the HP/weight ratio of the car. If a car doesn't not have adequate HP or torque to spin its 2 normal drive wheels under acceleration it doesn't provide that much benefit whereas the extra weight of an AWD situation will almost always hamper acceleration.

Don't forget the extra drag caused by the additional moving parts as well. For most people the benefit of AWD will be improved off the line acceleration and accelerating out of low speed turns where there is more torque and HP being transmitted to the wheels. At higher speeds it is much harder to spin the wheels so unless you have mondo HP, drive on slick roads or do a lot of hard launches AWD isn't going to provide a huge benefit.

OTOH it will almost always decrease fuel economy and definitely incurs a performance penalty on acceleration due to the extra weight. This can be offset somewhat at lower speed acceleration ranges by its ability to launch harder.

Having said all of that I still REALLY like AWD or 4WD cars/trucks as many of my vehicles are making quite a bit of HP and it definitely allows me to put that power to the ground more effectively. If I was driving a Yugo, RWD, FWD or AWD isn't going to make a huge difference. Start getting cars with higher HP/weight ratios and it becomes more attractive to definitely have AWD. Where I live snow, ice and slick roads comprise about 45% of my drive time. I always hated putting my Vette away for the winter but it was just miserable to drive in bad weather even with a decent set of snows as the traction control was almost permanently in effect.

One preference is I would rather have a well designed RWD car than a AWD car that starts with a huge bias of power to the front wheels and doesn't shift much power rearward. I don't like the typical plowing (understeer) you get with this setup and most of them that are like that won't normally transmit more than 50% power to the rear. I would definitely prefer an AWD system where I can still effectively control the car with the throttle to the extent I could get the car to step out a bit with a serious dose of throttle. Throttle induced oversteer can be a lot of fun. I do like how soon I can get the power down with AWD while exiting a turn. A sport tuned AWD system is truly a joy to drive. I'll deal with the weight, mileage and acceleration penalty just so I don't have to park my sports cars in the winter.

 

I'll except that.

 

Gentlemen, please note. I said , "..in extreme cases, AWD isn't a match for RWD.."; the operative word being "extreme".

I stand by my statement.

 

Originally posted by SOutherboy:

To CoasterRider;

Your chart is wrong for your RWD in the traction column simply because is does not qualify traction conditions. RWD is far better in this are than FWD, with the exception of some snow conditions.

Also, in extreme cases, AWD isn't a match for RWD either, but those are, as stated extreme, and specific in nature.




Would someone please explain to me how RWD is better than FWD for traction EVER (engine in front of car of course)

Yes, RWD is better for handling in most situations (not all)...

...but, how does having the weight over the driving wheels not give you the MOST traction? in snow, rain, dry, or running on f*ing banana peels?

and as far as AWD goes... my guess is that anyone who says AWD is not better for both TRACTION & HANDLING has never driven an AWD audi. They will whip BMW/MB RWD and ACURA FWD in handling and traction any day of the week. go drive an AWD 6 speed A6 and get back to us! (yea, its hevier, but it RAWKS! try some windy roads with wet leaves and see how it does NOT loose traction)


dOnuts

 

bump

 

because of weight trasfer.... under hard acceleration the weight is no longer over the front wheels but transfered to the rear of the car... ever see a car accelerate hard? the ass end dips and the front lifts decreasing traction on a fwd car. also on a fwd car the front tires are steering and providing the forward propulsion. if you cut the wheel and stomp the gas more then likely the car will skid toward the outside of the corner, this is what is known as understeer. basically the front tires dont have enough traction to both turn the car and to turn the car where you pointed it. lessened by the limited slip in the 6mt but still very present if you flog it. rwd drive cars the front tires are turning and the rear tires provide the propulsion. so the tires are as limited in what the can handle. also you can use the cars power to "steer" in a rwd. you can literally over power the rear tires and get the back end to rotate around the front, simply awsome in a slow corner.

rwd is superior most of the time... in snow the rear end doesnt grip, and if it does it dances alot because of less weight (weight transfer is lessened as the tires arent gripping). rear engine, rear drive is by far the best single axle powered method (think nsx, ferarri 430, indy, lemans) all wheel drive being even better if set up with the right combination of parts (subaru wrx, mitsu evo). all wheel drive is so effective as no matter where the weight goes thru weight transfer its over the drive wheels. but weight penalties and drivetrain loss make it less effective then a well setup rwd car

the sheer safety factor is a big reason why i think honda has kept fwd so long. power oversteer in the hands of the masses leads to many accidents (mustangs, camaros, corvettes) i myself have swapped ends in my 280 zx. its not a pleasent feeling

 

From this thread and others here it seems like Acura is leaving quite a bit of money on the table. I also would have opted for the AWD option if it were available on the car (assuming it were done properly and not simply slapped onto the existing car). Also in regards to the weight difference between the RL and TL, I do not think this is due only to the AWD inclusion. There is a larger motor, larger wheels, more damping material, thicker composites for the interior components, real wood, etc etc. All of these + the AWD add up to create the almost 1000lb difference in curb weight.

If Acura wants to test the market (it seems they are VERY VERY conservative) they should introduce a limited production sport model (perhaps order only) that can be used as a rolling concept. They could tighten the suspension (even the A-Spec feels quite spongy), tighten the steering (speed sensitive anyone), bump the horsepower (AWD can handle ALOT more than FWD) etc etc. I for one would have bought this improved version of the TL. This would allow those of us with a sporting nature to enjoy the car, and at the same time allow the more timid among us to simply opt for the base model. When compared to other car manufacturers Acura offers no where NEAR the number of options that they could. They are a psuedo luxury/value brand and could seriously capitalize on the cost savings one incurs on the base price. I optioned my car out with the full A-Spec....just imagine a true Type S with all the goodies....I would have bought one. How many conversion sales from Infiniti/Lexus would this bring in the door????

Also keep in mind that until Acura changes from FWD, they will NEVER be taken seriously by the automotive press. Before I get flamed on that last remark, I am not advising that they NEED the automotive press (the sales figures attest to this) but simply that they are NOT seen as a sport/performance oriented company in any way. Nissans are drooled over in the press due in no small part to the fact that they are RWD. They make good cars, but none are to my liking (I am including Infiniti as well). When compared to the Acura I find that they are just too bland for my tastes. Imagine the TL as a RWD car (sadly thats all we can do)......

Car and Driver said it best during the showdown "If the TL were RWD it would have won this contest". Granted C&D are COMPLETELY biased in their views but it is about time Honda/Acura woke up to the fact that these magazines, and these drivetrains (AWD/RWD) SELL PRODUCT!!

Acura are you listening??

--steps off soapbox--

 

Thanks, ONAGER. I'm surprised that bags_RENAMED didn't know this, but perhaps he's new to the "gearhead" culture.

As ONAGER explained, it's all wrapped up on one simple phrase; "Weight Transfer".

And one more time, I'll remind people that my statement, ""..in extreme cases, AWD isn't a match for RWD.." is absolutely correct. As I also stated, the operative word is "extreme". Now for an explanation of this.

Ever hear of Top Fuel in the the fine sport of drag racing? Or maybe Funny Car? How about Pro Stock, Top Gas, Door Slammers, or just about any of the really serious class in drag racing. RWD rules here for the same reason as RWD has it over FWD for traction.. plus 1. And that one is weight. Weight is an enemy of drag racing.

Also Indy cars and NASCAR win with RWD for pretty much the same reasons, only there it's more weight than straight line acceleration.

Those are the extreme cases of which I was speaking.

 

I think only FWD is needed