The "Rivalry" is Real?
#41
Originally Posted by Xpditor
Barry, I feel I'm missing part of a puzzle. What is it you are driving through the Cascades? What is an "R" wagon?
Do you really think FWD has anything to do with cornering ability rather than handling characteristics? Do you think the individual tires, the only contact with the ground, know whether it's FWD or RWD? Are you aware that, in testing in Road and Track in April of this year, a base TL with HPT got better skid pad AND slalom numbers than an '04 BMW 530i with a Sport Package (wheels, tires, suspension)? The same testers gave a subjective rating for skid pad balance on BOTH cars as "moderate understeer". For slalom balance, they rated the TL as "moderate understeer" and the BMW as "mild understeer".
In professional testing, the TL gets through the twisties faster than a BMW 530i especially with more power and acceleration and better braking 80-0. The testers noted: "In the slalom, the TL threads through the cones with utmost agility, giving the car a bit of on-throttle oversteer character, thanks to its rear suspension geometry..." That suspension, BTW, is double wishbone at the four corners just like Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Corvette.
Other than pre-conception, why would you think a FWD TL would not be able to keep up with your wagon (not sure what it is) when it beats a RWD BMW handling icon?
I used to be prejudiced against FWD too until I started putting the TL through its paces. I suggest, if you haven't done so already, that you do the same. Give it a chance to show you what it can do.
Keep in mind: I also have a BMW and I know the difference.
Cheers,
XP
Do you really think FWD has anything to do with cornering ability rather than handling characteristics? Do you think the individual tires, the only contact with the ground, know whether it's FWD or RWD? Are you aware that, in testing in Road and Track in April of this year, a base TL with HPT got better skid pad AND slalom numbers than an '04 BMW 530i with a Sport Package (wheels, tires, suspension)? The same testers gave a subjective rating for skid pad balance on BOTH cars as "moderate understeer". For slalom balance, they rated the TL as "moderate understeer" and the BMW as "mild understeer".
In professional testing, the TL gets through the twisties faster than a BMW 530i especially with more power and acceleration and better braking 80-0. The testers noted: "In the slalom, the TL threads through the cones with utmost agility, giving the car a bit of on-throttle oversteer character, thanks to its rear suspension geometry..." That suspension, BTW, is double wishbone at the four corners just like Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Corvette.
Other than pre-conception, why would you think a FWD TL would not be able to keep up with your wagon (not sure what it is) when it beats a RWD BMW handling icon?
I used to be prejudiced against FWD too until I started putting the TL through its paces. I suggest, if you haven't done so already, that you do the same. Give it a chance to show you what it can do.
Keep in mind: I also have a BMW and I know the difference.
Cheers,
XP
If you look at FWD type-Rs, they can keep up with anything in its class but FWD does have a weakness when the horsepower gets around 300.
#42
Senior Moderator
If not 530, then what?
Originally Posted by EZZ
You can't compare the 530 to the TL because there is a HUGE horsepower difference between the two. The 530 is a luxo cruiser and isn't tuned to handle in that capacity. Why don't you compare the TL to its closest competitor, the G35. The G35 had a good 2mph faster through the slalom. Thats significantly faster.
If you look at FWD type-Rs, they can keep up with anything in its class but FWD does have a weakness when the horsepower gets around 300.
If you look at FWD type-Rs, they can keep up with anything in its class but FWD does have a weakness when the horsepower gets around 300.
Here's what BMW's website says about the 530i:
The graceful beauty of the new 530i exterior is the first hint that you are in the presence of perfection. Powered by a 3-liter, 225-hp inline-six engine with Double VANOS valve timing, the 2004 530i sets a new benchmark for performance and agility. Industry-leading safety systems, enhanced performance features, and an expanded interior add up to unparalleled control, comfort, and peace of mind.
530i Sedan Highlights
6-Speed Manual Transmission
iDrive Controller
BMW Assist
Active Cruise Control
Adaptive Headlight
Active Roll Stabilization
Frontal-Offset Crash Test (end of BMW site excerpt)
BMW promotes the 530i as a performance machine as witness the standard 6 speed manual tranny. Then, if you tack on the Sports Package and go for the bigger wheels, tires, shocks, sway bars, etc. you are building BMW's bread-and-butter sports sedan. The 745 is a luxo-cruiser (no manual) and the 3 series is a compact sport sedan much smaller than our TL.
Acura admits that the BMW 530i Sport was its target in redesigning the TL. They have exceeded their goal. If you download the two data panels from the April issue of Road and Track, then overlap them, you will see that the two cars are nearly identical in dimension, shape, room, etc. Where they differ, that difference is in fractions of an inch.
If we want to compare the TL with a BMW, which model do you think would be more appropriate? Or, don't you think we should compare them? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
I was ready to buy the 04 530i until I saw it. I was way turned off by the Bangledized styling. I felt sick. I much prefer the looks of the 2003. I then turned to TL and was not disappointed. The G35 Coupe was a close runner-up for about the same money.
XP
#43
Powered by Guinness
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stockton, CA
Age: 55
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Why compare to the 530...?
Originally Posted by EZZ
You can't compare the 530 to the TL because there is a HUGE horsepower difference between the two. The 530 is a luxo cruiser and isn't tuned to handle in that capacity. Why don't you compare the TL to its closest competitor, the G35. The G35 had a good 2mph faster through the slalom. Thats significantly faster.
If you look at FWD type-Rs, they can keep up with anything in its class but FWD does have a weakness when the horsepower gets around 300.
If you look at FWD type-Rs, they can keep up with anything in its class but FWD does have a weakness when the horsepower gets around 300.
"From a handling standpoint, the toughest target in the TL segment is the BMW 530i Sport. The new TL chassis was engineered to challenge this comparison favorite." - Acura
530i not tuned to handle? Huh? The 530i handles very well and is a self-proclaimed "Ultimate Driving Machine". Sorry about the horsepower difference. I encourage BMW to fix that. Horsepower doesn't do much for slalom times though. A Mini Cooper if probably faster through the slalom than all of the cars mentioned here.
#44
Originally Posted by Aegir
Because that's the car the TL was built to beat - in handling:
"From a handling standpoint, the toughest target in the TL segment is the BMW 530i Sport. The new TL chassis was engineered to challenge this comparison favorite." - Acura
530i not tuned to handle? Huh? The 530i handles very well and is a self-proclaimed "Ultimate Driving Machine". Sorry about the horsepower difference. I encourage BMW to fix that. Horsepower doesn't do much for slalom times though. A Mini Cooper if probably faster through the slalom than all of the cars mentioned here.
"From a handling standpoint, the toughest target in the TL segment is the BMW 530i Sport. The new TL chassis was engineered to challenge this comparison favorite." - Acura
530i not tuned to handle? Huh? The 530i handles very well and is a self-proclaimed "Ultimate Driving Machine". Sorry about the horsepower difference. I encourage BMW to fix that. Horsepower doesn't do much for slalom times though. A Mini Cooper if probably faster through the slalom than all of the cars mentioned here.
#45
Great story XP. I enjoyed reading it. You mentioned passing on the right. What are the facts about doing that? Is it illegal? My wife doesn't like it when I do it, but at times I must because people won't yeild.
#46
Originally Posted by dcarlinf1
Great story XP. I enjoyed reading it. You mentioned passing on the right. What are the facts about doing that? Is it illegal? My wife doesn't like it when I do it, but at times I must because people won't yeild.
#47
Disproportionate Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Age: 57
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's legal (and in many cases mandatory) in Texas. People have this habit here of plopping their pickup trucks or big-assed Seats Usually Vacant vehicles down in the left lane and staying there. I come into work before 6:30am, when traffic is still light to moderate, and even then, you're very likely to see someone on the expressway doing 60ish in the left lane with not a soul in front of them, and no desire or awareness of moving over.
Originally Posted by dcarlinf1
Great story XP. I enjoyed reading it. You mentioned passing on the right. What are the facts about doing that? Is it illegal? My wife doesn't like it when I do it, but at times I must because people won't yeild.
#48
Originally Posted by dcarlinf1
One question. Were you passing anyone at the time? If not, why were you in the "fast" lane? If you were, great, no problem. But, it's not really the fast lane, it's the passing lane. Once you pass you should get over and stay over to the right unless you need to pass again. Not trying to flame you personally. Just a pet peave of mine. Please don't drive in the "passing" lane if you aren't passing anyone regardless how "fast" you are going. Fast is all relative. I may want to go 80 and you 75. We are both going fast. But, a considerate driver doing 75 would move over for another considerate driver (not tailgating) doing 80...in a perfect world.
Sorry, just go back from a 1000 mile trip. So many people don't understand this simple concept. I always want to ask people "why were roads increased to 2 instead of 1 lane in the first place?". The answer is so faster traffic can pass slower traffic. That is the only reason. Not so people can lollygag in the passing lane not passing anyone.
Remember...it's not the fast lane, it's the passing lane.
Sorry, just go back from a 1000 mile trip. So many people don't understand this simple concept. I always want to ask people "why were roads increased to 2 instead of 1 lane in the first place?". The answer is so faster traffic can pass slower traffic. That is the only reason. Not so people can lollygag in the passing lane not passing anyone.
Remember...it's not the fast lane, it's the passing lane.
#49
Senior Moderator
Nitty Gritty!
Originally Posted by EZZ
The BMW 530i is not tuned for slalom runs. The m3 or z4 is better in that department It really is a pretty softly tuned car compared to the TL (IMO). Same with the G35 coupe. My G coupe is extremely rough (way worse than TL) but I bet it'll out-handle the TL. I think the TL is the right compromise for a lot of people but I also think the 530 is also tuned right for its target audience.
Here are the skid pad and slalom numbers for the BMW M5: 0.85 and 66.4 (less grip than the TL and .6 mph faster in slalom)
Here are the numbers for M3 SMG: .87 and 68.3 (identical grip and 2.5 mph faster than TL in slalom)
Are you starting to see a pattern here? You don't want to compare the base TL with a Sport Package BMW of the same size because... why? It's not fair? We should compare it with the M's or the Z sport car? That is so flattering to the TL it makes me glow with pride. Those are world class sport cars! I assume that you will agree that the M5 is not a typical "luxo-cruiser" for $73,000.
Want more?
G35 Sedan: .86 and 65mph (nearly the same as RWD 330i but not as good as TL)
G35 Coupe: .92 and 67.7 (very impressive and expected for this fine 2 dr)
Z4 3.0:..........92 and 67.0 (a purpose built sport car, tho not as good as G35 Coupe)
Hello world! Time to rethink that which has been pounded into our heads about the defficiencies of FWD. This is 2004. This FWD Acura TL, mid-size luxury sedan, with comfort and convenience for 5 adults, costing under $35,000 is running with the Big Dawgs and beating most of them at their own games. When are you going to give it its props?
Please write back and tell me, "Yeah, but an Enzo Ferrari handles better." and "Yeah, but a Maybach has more room in the back seat". I love it when our TL is compared with those fine automobiles, even if it comes up a couple red p. hairs short.
We won't even get into "bang for the buck". That's another discussion.
XP
(Can you tell I my TL?)
#50
Originally Posted by Xpditor
Here are the skid pad and and slalom numbers for BMW 330i: 0.86 and 65.4 (both slower than the TL which is .87 and 65.8 mph)
Here are the skid pad and slalom numbers for the BMW M5: 0.85 and 66.4 (less grip than the TL and .6 mph faster in slalom)
Here are the numbers for M3 SMG: .87 and 68.3 (identical grip and 2.5 mph faster than TL in slalom)
Are you starting to see a pattern here? You don't want to compare the base TL with a Sport Package BMW of the same size because... why? It's not fair? We should compare it with the M's or the Z sport car? That is so flattering to the TL it makes me glow with pride. Those are world class sport cars! I assume that you will agree that the M5 is not a typical "luxo-cruiser" for $73,000.
Want more?
G35 Sedan: .86 and 65mph (nearly the same as RWD 330i but not as good as TL)
G35 Coupe: .92 and 67.7 (very impressive and expected for this fine 2 dr)
Z4 3.0:..........92 and 67.0 (a purpose built sport car, tho not as good as G35 Coupe)
Hello world! Time to rethink that which has been pounded into our heads about the defficiencies of FWD. This is 2004. This FWD Acura TL, mid-size luxury sedan, with comfort and convenience for 5 adults, costing under $35,000 is running with the Big Dawgs and beating most of them at their own games. When are you going to give it its props?
Please write back and tell me, "Yeah, but an Enzo Ferrari handles better." and "Yeah, but a Maybach has more room in the back seat". I love it when our TL is compared with those fine automobiles, even if it comes up a couple red p. hairs short.
We won't even get into "bang for the buck". That's another discussion.
XP
(Can you tell I my TL?)
Here are the skid pad and slalom numbers for the BMW M5: 0.85 and 66.4 (less grip than the TL and .6 mph faster in slalom)
Here are the numbers for M3 SMG: .87 and 68.3 (identical grip and 2.5 mph faster than TL in slalom)
Are you starting to see a pattern here? You don't want to compare the base TL with a Sport Package BMW of the same size because... why? It's not fair? We should compare it with the M's or the Z sport car? That is so flattering to the TL it makes me glow with pride. Those are world class sport cars! I assume that you will agree that the M5 is not a typical "luxo-cruiser" for $73,000.
Want more?
G35 Sedan: .86 and 65mph (nearly the same as RWD 330i but not as good as TL)
G35 Coupe: .92 and 67.7 (very impressive and expected for this fine 2 dr)
Z4 3.0:..........92 and 67.0 (a purpose built sport car, tho not as good as G35 Coupe)
Hello world! Time to rethink that which has been pounded into our heads about the defficiencies of FWD. This is 2004. This FWD Acura TL, mid-size luxury sedan, with comfort and convenience for 5 adults, costing under $35,000 is running with the Big Dawgs and beating most of them at their own games. When are you going to give it its props?
Please write back and tell me, "Yeah, but an Enzo Ferrari handles better." and "Yeah, but a Maybach has more room in the back seat". I love it when our TL is compared with those fine automobiles, even if it comes up a couple red p. hairs short.
We won't even get into "bang for the buck". That's another discussion.
XP
(Can you tell I my TL?)
The TL handles good but not great I and many others have come to the same conclusion (as evidenced by ALL of the critics). I'm NOT bashing the TL. I'm trying to be objective about the handling differences between RWD and FWD and yes, I truly can feel the difference. Take the TL in an autocross even and see if it can hang with a G35 or 330. I bet it can't due to its FWD limitations (same level driver of course).
#51
Originally Posted by EZZ
Does it matter if it is illegal? I bet most people speed all the time which is also illegal. The better question would be, is it dangerous? I find passing on the right to be much more dangerous and I am aware of my surroundings every time I do it (which isn't too often). I agree with you though in that often, it is necessary to do so.
One more pet peave is people that don't use the on-ramps the way they are intended. Again, you have to ask yourself, why are on-ramps an 1/8 mile or even a 1/4 mile long? I'll tell you why. It's so you can get up to speed to merge safely. You will be much safer merging if you are going the same speed as those already on the freeway. If you are trying to merge at 10, 15 or 20 MPH slower you become the safety hazard. It's so simple really. I can't believe people refuse to use their brains and realize this simple concept.
Sorry for hijacking this thread BTW.
Later
#52
Advanced
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: san jose,San Diego,CA
Age: 41
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dcarlinf1
I was just interested in getting the smokey's opinion so I asked if it was legal. You are right, the real question is if it's dangerous or not. Personally, I don't think it's all that dangerous if you are careful about it. I do it ALL THE TIME. Which doesn't make it right but I am confident in doing it. I give the left lane blocker a few seconds to get over and if he doesn't I move on. What about multi lane highways with more than 2 lanes? It almost becomes a requirement then if you are going to make any progress. Again, it wouldn't even be an issue if people would just "keep right except to pass".
One more pet peave is people that don't use the on-ramps the way they are intended. Again, you have to ask yourself, why are on-ramps an 1/8 mile or even a 1/4 mile long? I'll tell you why. It's so you can get up to speed to merge safely. You will be much safer merging if you are going the same speed as those already on the freeway. If you are trying to merge at 10, 15 or 20 MPH slower you become the safety hazard. It's so simple really. I can't believe people refuse to use their brains and realize this simple concept.
Sorry for hijacking this thread BTW.
Later
One more pet peave is people that don't use the on-ramps the way they are intended. Again, you have to ask yourself, why are on-ramps an 1/8 mile or even a 1/4 mile long? I'll tell you why. It's so you can get up to speed to merge safely. You will be much safer merging if you are going the same speed as those already on the freeway. If you are trying to merge at 10, 15 or 20 MPH slower you become the safety hazard. It's so simple really. I can't believe people refuse to use their brains and realize this simple concept.
Sorry for hijacking this thread BTW.
Later
i have multiple times...MERGED into the right lane already...and some cars sped up to my ass..just to show me that i made them slow down...god..i was going 65...i can do that on my right lane..can't i? its not like i am doing 65 anywhere else
#53
Originally Posted by takuyaah
dcarlin1 i agree that you shouldn't merge with 20mph or something..thats just stupid...but in san diego, CA...we never really have any 1/4 mile onramp or anything like that..maybe 1/8 mile if you are lucky...mind that not everyone drives a 2004 TL.....i personally have difficulty building up speed...i usually get to around 60 or 65 by the time i get to the merging sections..(not all the time...some onramps are really short) ....of course i still have to look to get behind some cars or try to adjust speed so that i can get in...but there are some assholes out there...like to block you out for some weird reasons..like...you saw my turn signal for a while now..why did you try to speed up and get next to me? i really don't understand those people..
i have multiple times...MERGED into the right lane already...and some cars sped up to my ass..just to show me that i made them slow down...god..i was going 65...i can do that on my right lane..can't i? its not like i am doing 65 anywhere else
i have multiple times...MERGED into the right lane already...and some cars sped up to my ass..just to show me that i made them slow down...god..i was going 65...i can do that on my right lane..can't i? its not like i am doing 65 anywhere else
#54
Registered Abuser of VTEC
Originally Posted by EZZ
Don't you know that in San Diego, EVERY LANE is the passing lane Have you noticed that San Diego drivers get suckier every year. I remember when they actually drove like normal people, now they think they're in LA :o
#56
Senior Moderator
Ex-smokey, to be accurate.
Originally Posted by dcarlinf1
I was just interested in getting the smokey's opinion so I asked if it was legal. You are right, the real question is if it's dangerous or not.
In general, the law says that a car should be driven as close to the right edge of the road as possible with a few exceptions: making a left turn, a multiple lane one-way street, overtaking and passing.
When a car overtakes another car (comes up from behind at a faster pace), and when he signals the overtaken car either audibly or with a flashing of headlights, the overtaken car is obliged to yield to the overtaking car and move as far to the right as is safe under the circumstances. Not yielding is not an option.
However, under the section of the code under "overtaking and passing", it is NOT illegal to pass a car on the right- again under certain circumstances (e.g. a car is making a left turn on a three lane, two-way roadway). If there are two or more lanes going in each direction, it is not illegal to pass a slower car on the right when the view is unobstructed and it is safe to do so. When you think about it in terms of a four lane city street (instead of highway), it's easy to understand why this is permitted.
That doesn't make it wise or safe to do on the open road. Because of the law and its requirement to only do so when it is safe, if you have a crash- that crash is evidence that it wasn't safe! (We don't call them "accidents" anymore because that implies nobody was at fault. The theory is that if everyone were obeying the traffic code, there would never be a crash. Many departments REQUIRE that a ticket be issued at every crash scene.)
A general rule of traffic I always keep in mind is that you "own" the lane you are in. No one is allowed to push you out of it or interfere with your progress. If you choose to leave "your" lane and go into someone else's, it is your obligation to yield to all other traffic and not to impede their progress and their safety envelope. If a crash occurs and one car is traveling in "their" lane, and the other car was coming into that lane from another, they are at fault because they didn't yield. That's why some drivers are reluctant to change lanes- especially seniors who find it difficult to turn around and look in their blind spot. So they sit there in the "passing lane"- and drive me right up the wall while violating the requirement to yield to the passing vehicle.
XP
#57
Originally Posted by Xpditor
The traffic laws in most states are the same. That's why they call it the Uniform Vehicle Traffic Code. States do have their little differences.
In general, the law says that a car should be driven as close to the right edge of the road as possible with a few exceptions: making a left turn, a multiple lane one-way street, overtaking and passing.
When a car overtakes another car (comes up from behind at a faster pace), and when he signals the overtaken car either audibly or with a flashing of headlights, the overtaken car is obliged to yield to the overtaking car and move as far to the right as is safe under the circumstances. Not yielding is not an option.
However, under the section of the code under "overtaking and passing", it is NOT illegal to pass a car on the right- again under certain circumstances (e.g. a car is making a left turn on a three lane, two-way roadway). If there are two or more lanes going in each direction, it is not illegal to pass a slower car on the right when the view is unobstructed and it is safe to do so. When you think about it in terms of a four lane city street (instead of highway), it's easy to understand why this is permitted.
That doesn't make it wise or safe to do on the open road. Because of the law and its requirement to only do so when it is safe, if you have a crash- that crash is evidence that it wasn't safe! (We don't call them "accidents" anymore because that implies nobody was at fault. The theory is that if everyone were obeying the traffic code, there would never be a crash. Many departments REQUIRE that a ticket be issued at every crash scene.)
A general rule of traffic I always keep in mind is that you "own" the lane you are in. No one is allowed to push you out of it or interfere with your progress. If you choose to leave "your" lane and go into someone else's, it is your obligation to yield to all other traffic and not to impede their progress and their safety envelope. If a crash occurs and one car is traveling in "their" lane, and the other car was coming into that lane from another, they are at fault because they didn't yield. That's why some drivers are reluctant to change lanes- especially seniors who find it difficult to turn around and look in their blind spot. So they sit there in the "passing lane"- and drive me right up the wall while violating the requirement to yield to the passing vehicle.
XP
In general, the law says that a car should be driven as close to the right edge of the road as possible with a few exceptions: making a left turn, a multiple lane one-way street, overtaking and passing.
When a car overtakes another car (comes up from behind at a faster pace), and when he signals the overtaken car either audibly or with a flashing of headlights, the overtaken car is obliged to yield to the overtaking car and move as far to the right as is safe under the circumstances. Not yielding is not an option.
However, under the section of the code under "overtaking and passing", it is NOT illegal to pass a car on the right- again under certain circumstances (e.g. a car is making a left turn on a three lane, two-way roadway). If there are two or more lanes going in each direction, it is not illegal to pass a slower car on the right when the view is unobstructed and it is safe to do so. When you think about it in terms of a four lane city street (instead of highway), it's easy to understand why this is permitted.
That doesn't make it wise or safe to do on the open road. Because of the law and its requirement to only do so when it is safe, if you have a crash- that crash is evidence that it wasn't safe! (We don't call them "accidents" anymore because that implies nobody was at fault. The theory is that if everyone were obeying the traffic code, there would never be a crash. Many departments REQUIRE that a ticket be issued at every crash scene.)
A general rule of traffic I always keep in mind is that you "own" the lane you are in. No one is allowed to push you out of it or interfere with your progress. If you choose to leave "your" lane and go into someone else's, it is your obligation to yield to all other traffic and not to impede their progress and their safety envelope. If a crash occurs and one car is traveling in "their" lane, and the other car was coming into that lane from another, they are at fault because they didn't yield. That's why some drivers are reluctant to change lanes- especially seniors who find it difficult to turn around and look in their blind spot. So they sit there in the "passing lane"- and drive me right up the wall while violating the requirement to yield to the passing vehicle.
XP
#60
Proboscis-free zone
I too am sorry for hijacking this thread, but there is much truth here that transcends the TL experience. Thanks for the law enforcement perspective BTW, XP.
My high school driver ed teacher impressed upon me:
If you're being passed on the right, you're in the wrong.
Words to live by.
My high school driver ed teacher impressed upon me:
If you're being passed on the right, you're in the wrong.
Words to live by.
#61
Thanks XP. Great explanation. Plus it seems my assumptions/opinions are pretty well in line with the law. I do drive pretty fast and at times aggressively. But, I always try to be considerate and safe at the same time. Thanks again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sarlacc
Console & Computer Gaming
5
09-30-2015 02:15 PM