Money Magazine's "best Cars" List
03-03-2004, 01:51 PM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money Magazine's "best Cars" List
03-03-2004, 02:13 PM
#2
Senior Moderator
It's alright the TL is not on the list. "Different strokes for different folks", as the saying goes. I still smile when I hit 5k on the tach as I'm accelerating, passing most other cars on the freeway, and no report, positive or negative, can change that. 
03-03-2004, 03:13 PM
#6
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Norse396
Consumer Reports wrote up the new TL as "Best in class" in February.
Consumer Reports wrote up the new TL as "Best in class" in February.
03-03-2004, 03:34 PM
#7
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You never responded to my post in that thread, you were too busy arguing with everybody. Perhaps you could read my response so this issue between us anyway, can die the death it truely deserves.
If I want to discuss fast sub 10 second cars I'll discuss them at my car club meetings where the slowest car could swallow that LS1 and spit out LB9's.
If I want to discuss fast sub 10 second cars I'll discuss them at my car club meetings where the slowest car could swallow that LS1 and spit out LB9's.
Trending Topics
03-03-2004, 03:42 PM
#9
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Norse396
You never responded to my post in that thread, you were too busy arguing with everybody. Perhaps you could read my response so this issue between us anyway, can die the death it truely deserves.
If I want to discuss fast sub 10 second cars I'll discuss them at my car club meetings where the slowest car could swallow that LS1 and spit out LB9's.
You never responded to my post in that thread, you were too busy arguing with everybody. Perhaps you could read my response so this issue between us anyway, can die the death it truely deserves.
If I want to discuss fast sub 10 second cars I'll discuss them at my car club meetings where the slowest car could swallow that LS1 and spit out LB9's.
Just as I claimed...and just as you denied...
Top fuel dragsters are now in the mid 4s @ 320 plus MPH...
I'm aware what "fast" is as well as the MODIFICATIONS that are required to produce it.
409 RWHP with JUST A CAM and some external bolt-ons if pretty damn impessive...And I'm certain that's with 92 octane unleaded pump gas; additional octane would serve no benefit with the stock compression.
03-03-2004, 03:46 PM
#10
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by vtechbrain
GUYS harddriving is a troll please ignore!
GUYS harddriving is a troll please ignore!
How much does "the radio" (Mark Levinson") option in the LS430 cost again?
What's TORQUE and why would one want it?
Why can't Acura produce a car that betters GM's simple, cam in block, 2 valve per cylinder V8 in terms of Peak Drivewheel HP per MPG?
You make one misleading or FLAT OUT ERRONEOUS statement after the next, but I'm a "troll."
03-03-2004, 03:49 PM
#12
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Norse396
Like I said, you didn't read my response....
Like I said, you didn't read my response....
And what's it going to be? You denied what I claimed, which is exactly what's written.
Throw a cam of similar grind into a vintage, unaltered "375 HP" 396 (RPO L78); then fit it with similar external mods and see what it dynos at...I'd be shocked to see 309 RWHP.
03-03-2004, 03:50 PM
#13
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is my reply and I quote
Here is a link to said quote, maybe now you can let the topic die. May I suggest you read what people write you instead of just trolling for flames.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=3
"Ok, just read what you posted from the article, damn impressive for a stock short block, and they did modify the injection, as I mentioned they would have to, but that is a bolt on, not internal so I'll agree, an excellent setup for consistent 10's."
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=3
03-03-2004, 03:52 PM
#14
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Norse396
Here is my reply and I quote
Here is a link to said quote, maybe now you can let the topic die. May I suggest you read what people write you instead of just trolling for flames.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=3
Here is my reply and I quote
Here is a link to said quote, maybe now you can let the topic die. May I suggest you read what people write you instead of just trolling for flames.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...5&pagenumber=3
Sorry.
Glad you agree; the LS1 is a kic-a** engine right up until is reaches the stress/strain limit of the production aluminum block...
After that it's time for a C5R block.
03-03-2004, 03:56 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throw a cam of similar grind into a vintage, unaltered "375 HP" 396; then fit it with similar external mods and see what it dynos at...I'd be shocked to see 309 RWHP.
Get off your high horse and stop comparing apples to oranges. If you want to argue American V8's find an appropriate forum and I'll meet you there, this just isn't the place for it.
03-03-2004, 03:58 PM
#16
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Norse396
So the 396 has to be unaltered but the LS1 is allowed injection upgrades etc... Your argument is crap, I had a '69 SS Chevelle with an unaltered 396 which stock put out nearly 330hp to the rear wheels, with a Comp Cams 520H, no head work, a new intake and carb (equal to an inatke injection upgrade) large diameter headers, 2.5 inch flowmaster exhaust the car was making an easy 495hp, all based on an engine built in 1969 with 1969 head design.
Get off your high horse and stop comparing apples to oranges. If you want to argue American V8's find an appropriate forum and I'll meet you there, this just isn't the place for it.
So the 396 has to be unaltered but the LS1 is allowed injection upgrades etc... Your argument is crap, I had a '69 SS Chevelle with an unaltered 396 which stock put out nearly 330hp to the rear wheels, with a Comp Cams 520H, no head work, a new intake and carb (equal to an inatke injection upgrade) large diameter headers, 2.5 inch flowmaster exhaust the car was making an easy 495hp, all based on an engine built in 1969 with 1969 head design.
Get off your high horse and stop comparing apples to oranges. If you want to argue American V8's find an appropriate forum and I'll meet you there, this just isn't the place for it.
You're joking...right?
03-03-2004, 03:59 PM
#19
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by vtechbrain
Norse your wasting your breath!
Norse your wasting your breath!
They ended up changing the cam, fully working the heads, installing long tube headers, removing all the engine accessories, installing aftermarket intake parts, etc to get it to produce what the factory CLAIMED it produced. (No surprise, since the factories back then equipped their "production engines" in a similar fashion to arrive at outrageous results for advertising purposes.)
Those old crates back then didn't make any power to speak of. Dyno tuned 426 STREET hemis (again, STOCK but well TUNED) struggled to produce 300 RWHP. The "typical" muscle car (e.g. GTO) produced ~ 180 RWHP and would get smoked by a box stock Acura TL.
Of course, the many of the "stock" vintage muscle cars are a lot faster today...35 years after they rolled off the assembly line.
03-03-2004, 05:10 PM
#20
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a difference between the 325hp 396 and the aluminum headed 375hp 396.
A 375hp 396 put close to 335hp to the rear wheels. You bring up the 375 hp 396, then later use the lower power 396 to prove a point that is applicable to the 375hp motor. This argument is fruitless and not needed, as I said, we can discuss gearhead stuff at a gearhead forum
A 375hp 396 put close to 335hp to the rear wheels. You bring up the 375 hp 396, then later use the lower power 396 to prove a point that is applicable to the 375hp motor. This argument is fruitless and not needed, as I said, we can discuss gearhead stuff at a gearhead forum
03-03-2004, 05:37 PM
#22
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Norse396
Why do you piss on Chevy to brag about a Chevy? You make no sense.
Why do you piss on Chevy to brag about a Chevy? You make no sense.
And the dyno article I posted was for the "350 HP" 396...the one that made just 25 HP less than the "375HP" version...
Virtually none of that old crap made any REAL power in stock form...A V6 Accord trounces this "335 HP" GTO by ~ 30 drive wheel HP:
03-03-2004, 06:05 PM
#24
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not you Skeedatl.
So, what was great in 1969 is now considered crap because it was made in 1969 and we have come a long way. That is an ignorant stupid comment.
Of course we've come a long way since 1969 and I'll tell you what, give most people a shot at a gimme car they will opt for the Goat everytime. You're constantly comparing things that aren't directly comparable unless your mission is to state how far things have come, which in my opinion isn't your mission at all.
Grow up, everybody with half a brain knows technology and engine design has come a long way. Conversly not many people here give a crap about how an LS1 stacks up to an engine built over 35 years ago.
You have a need to prove to everybody why your cars are better, or why you made the choices you've made, ok, we got it, making the point in every thread you visit gets old.
I'm "pissing" on 1969 to show you how far things have come during the last 35 years.
And the dyno article I posted was for the "350 HP" 396...the one that made just 25 HP less than the "375HP" version...
Virtually none of that old crap made any REAL power in stock form...A V6 Accord trounces this "335 HP" GTO by ~ 30 drive wheel HP:
And the dyno article I posted was for the "350 HP" 396...the one that made just 25 HP less than the "375HP" version...
Virtually none of that old crap made any REAL power in stock form...A V6 Accord trounces this "335 HP" GTO by ~ 30 drive wheel HP:
Of course we've come a long way since 1969 and I'll tell you what, give most people a shot at a gimme car they will opt for the Goat everytime. You're constantly comparing things that aren't directly comparable unless your mission is to state how far things have come, which in my opinion isn't your mission at all.
Grow up, everybody with half a brain knows technology and engine design has come a long way. Conversly not many people here give a crap about how an LS1 stacks up to an engine built over 35 years ago.
You have a need to prove to everybody why your cars are better, or why you made the choices you've made, ok, we got it, making the point in every thread you visit gets old.
03-03-2004, 06:10 PM
#25
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As was the case with most automotive engines produced in the US prior to 1972, the "375 HP" 396 made nothing CLOSE to its ADVERTISED/SAE GROSS figures.
You erroneously ASSUME that it made 375 SAE NET HP (the method uses to rate engines TODAY) and then subtract 40 HP for driveline loss to come up with the "335 rear wheel HP" claim.
In reality, the L78 had NOTHING on the Chevy Trailblazer's 4.2 liter DOHC inline 6 (275 HP SAE NET):
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~tcroy/horsepower.htm
You erroneously ASSUME that it made 375 SAE NET HP (the method uses to rate engines TODAY) and then subtract 40 HP for driveline loss to come up with the "335 rear wheel HP" claim.
In reality, the L78 had NOTHING on the Chevy Trailblazer's 4.2 liter DOHC inline 6 (275 HP SAE NET):
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~tcroy/horsepower.htm
03-03-2004, 06:22 PM
#27
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
If you're trying to talk logic with mullethead...you're wasting your breath. He's just here to troll, not actually make a point.
If you're trying to talk logic with mullethead...you're wasting your breath. He's just here to troll, not actually make a point.
03-03-2004, 06:30 PM
#30
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by adam209
why don't you guys just realize that this guy's full of sh!t and all he ever does is post articles he finds online?
why don't you guys just realize that this guy's full of sh!t and all he ever does is post articles he finds online?
And I'm telling you for a FACT that virtually NO "muscle car" from that era, in stock form, could produce more than 300 rear wheel HP. The majority struggled to produce 200 RHWP.
03-03-2004, 06:32 PM
#31
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: stockton
Posts: 1,789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Those are articles I've SCANNED from my VAST personal library of "Muscle car" era magazines.
And I'm telling you for a FACT that virtually NO "muscle car" from that era, in stock form, could produce more than 300 rear wheel HP. The majority struggled to produce 200 RHWP.
Those are articles I've SCANNED from my VAST personal library of "Muscle car" era magazines.
And I'm telling you for a FACT that virtually NO "muscle car" from that era, in stock form, could produce more than 300 rear wheel HP. The majority struggled to produce 200 RHWP.
03-03-2004, 06:33 PM
#32
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by adam209
good for you. why don't you go to your VAST library of porn and and work the muscles in your hand. it'd be more productive than posting bullsh!t, outdated articles
good for you. why don't you go to your VAST library of porn and and work the muscles in your hand. it'd be more productive than posting bullsh!t, outdated articles
Look at this "370 HP" (SAE GROSS) Corvette.
It's 200 pounds LIGHTER than a new Acura TL, has 100 MORE HP (to those who don't know the difference between gross and net) and it's almost EXACTLY as quick as a stone stock Acura TL 6 speed!
That's no surprise, since Chevrolet's idea of 370 HP (SAE GROSS) in 1970 = 270 SAE NET HP today.
03-03-2004, 06:42 PM
#33
Head a da Family
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Friggin Jerzy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,505
Received 561 Likes
on
393 Posts
Originally posted by neuronbob
It's alright the TL is not on the list. "Different strokes for different folks", as the saying goes. I still smile when I hit 5k on the tach as I'm accelerating, passing most other cars on the freeway, and no report, positive or negative, can change that.
It's alright the TL is not on the list. "Different strokes for different folks", as the saying goes. I still smile when I hit 5k on the tach as I'm accelerating, passing most other cars on the freeway, and no report, positive or negative, can change that.
I wouldn't be surprised if therein lies the answer.
03-03-2004, 06:45 PM
#34
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by DMZ
I think the real question is how much money Acura spends advertising in Money Magazine versus Infiniti, BMW, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if therein lies the answer.
I think the real question is how much money Acura spends advertising in Money Magazine versus Infiniti, BMW, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if therein lies the answer.
I don't know whether or not MONEY cares about that...
And for all you know, Acura/Honda advertise more in MONEY than does Nissan/Infiniti.
03-03-2004, 07:15 PM
#37
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: IL
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at this thread early on, recognized it for trollbait and moved on. Just curious, has he started in with the HIDs, his big bad macho modded way fast Camaro, or how smart he was to lease an Accord yet?
03-03-2004, 07:23 PM
#38
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by UminChu
I looked at this thread early on, recognized it for trollbait and moved on. Just curious, has he started in with the HIDs, his big bad macho modded way fast Camaro, or how smart he was to lease an Accord yet?
I looked at this thread early on, recognized it for trollbait and moved on. Just curious, has he started in with the HIDs, his big bad macho modded way fast Camaro, or how smart he was to lease an Accord yet?
It's probably a high 12/low 13 second car; I'm not a "drag racer," so I honestly don't know.
I bring up the Camaro only because it serves as an example of how a "low tech," cam in block, 2 valve/cyl, pushrod V8 outperforms any production engine Honda/Acura has yet produced in terms of peak drive wheel HP per rated MPG.
And GM was able to do that back in 1999....
So I can't help but laugh when some owners of Japanese cars spout off about their "high tech" engines while belittling GM.
The Accord was a good deal; I just put some rubber on it yesterday. Can't wait to play with a couple of TLs to see what the real world difference between those two cars really is...:p
03-03-2004, 08:38 PM
#39
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: stockton
Posts: 1,789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
The Camaro isn't "modded way fast"....
It's probably a high 12/low 13 second car; I'm not a "drag racer," so I honestly don't know.
I bring up the Camaro only because it serves as an example of how a "low tech," cam in block, 2 valve/cyl, pushrod V8 outperforms any production engine Honda/Acura has yet produced in terms of peak drive wheel HP per rated MPG.
And GM was able to do that back in 1999....
So I can't help but laugh when some owners of Japanese cars spout off about their "high tech" engines while belittling GM.
The Accord was a good deal; I just put some rubber on it yesterday. Can't wait to play with a couple of TLs to see what the real world difference between those two cars really is...:p
The Camaro isn't "modded way fast"....
It's probably a high 12/low 13 second car; I'm not a "drag racer," so I honestly don't know.
I bring up the Camaro only because it serves as an example of how a "low tech," cam in block, 2 valve/cyl, pushrod V8 outperforms any production engine Honda/Acura has yet produced in terms of peak drive wheel HP per rated MPG.
And GM was able to do that back in 1999....
So I can't help but laugh when some owners of Japanese cars spout off about their "high tech" engines while belittling GM.
The Accord was a good deal; I just put some rubber on it yesterday. Can't wait to play with a couple of TLs to see what the real world difference between those two cars really is...:p
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rp_guy
Member Cars for Sale
9
07-16-2017 07:33 AM
adreano17
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
2
09-29-2015 08:48 AM