We have our FIRST OFFICIAL 0-60 time, folks!

Ready?

R U sure?

OK....

Here goes:


6.3


NICE!

1/4 mile: 14.8 @ 96mph

Oh, and BETTER 0-60 times would have been posted if the 6MT's "on/off clutch wasn't so slippery." What is this about???


OK, now other thoughts:

The Goods:

It raises the bar
It's the best handling FWD ever
Very aggressive
Obvious good looks
Very impressive breaking (comparable to recent Porches they've tested)
Great fuel economy
A bargain
Raises the bar to "ear-bleeding heights"
Overall great value.

The Bads:

They still feel the need to say it's based on 2003 Accord (do they say that the A6 is based on the Passat??? noooo!).
Surprisingly, the 6MT feels "a little rubbery."
They forgive its minor body roll.
I saw a butt print on the passenger seat!!
They didn't didn't understand DVD-A enough to describe it properly.
Decreased trunk space.

Overall, obviously, a glowing review! My only concerns now (as a future 6MT owner) is that rubbery transmission. What's the deal with that? 6MT owners, please defend your goods!

Jon

 

Or... directly from the horses mouth...

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2312a.shtml

 

i want to see what C/D gets. there's no way this more powerful 6sp with lsd is slower than last gen's automatic

 

Don't be ridiculous. TL-S has never been a low 6s car (0-60). Previous TL was probably a bit under 7.5 and the Type S version 7s, which is very good.

Can't wait to see next Car&Driver and Road&Track.

 

I would tend to agree about the 6MT's times being a little on the slow side (IMHO). Whether the "rubbery" clutch was a driver problem, adjustment problem, a wear problem (if the car used had been tested alot), or a design problem I don't know. However, the review was a good one and certainly heightens my interest in a purchase next year. (WDP, auto, non-nav).

 

I can say that my clutch does not slip. Also, I'd like to know if they tested w/ or w/o the VSA active. Not all cars are created equal.

 

Huh?

Car and driver - 2001 TL type-s, 0 to 60 mph = 6.2 Sec (5/2001)

 

I know (I have the mag) that but they aren't simply representative. They also made the 0-60 in 6.1s for the RSX-S; it was never duplicated or remotely matched among other mags.

If it is only from one source that have an overtly reputation for optimis, I don't take it as valid. Common sense. There is no way that a car that weight as much with 260HP will approach this kind of performance. Nobody else in the competition can't either.

 

Clearly, they believed that the clutch was the culprit in hindering 0-60 times.

But, even if 6.3 was the best time they could get, I really don't think that's all that bad! In fact, doesn't that compete very well for cars in the segment/price point?

That said...if C&D gets it to 5.9, expect a whole new segment of buyers cross-shopping the TL!

C'mon C&D.... where's your review?!?!

Jon

 

Tell me about the rubbery feel of the shifter... what do you make of this comment???

Jon

 

Okay, how about Motor Trend's test of the CL Type S, 0 to 60 in 6.4 sec. and 1/4 mile in 14.8 seconds See: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...rd/index3.html

And that was with the automatic.

or http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/compa...8/page017.html

0 to 60 for the TL Type S at Edmund's was 6.6 seconds, again this is in the 6's.

 

MotorWeek's numbers are all over the place. They got 6.6s for the TL Type-S (relatively slow compared to other published numbers), but got 5.9s for the CL-S 6MT, although they did admit that it took some practice to get that 5.9. They clocked the 2003 V6 Accord sedan at 8.0s (NO ONE has gotten numbers that slow), and the 03 Z4 at 6.0s (other mags are in the low to mid 5's). If you look at some of the other numbers, you'll see that they sometimes have numbers that are significantly lower than other magazines, and sometimes they are right in line with other mags.

This 6.3 sec is just one of many numbers that will surface in the coming months. I have a feeling that it will be one of the slower ones, but it might be more representative of everyday driving performace vs. the cluth-dropping, pull-to-the-redline approach used by others, hehe. Had they spent the same amount of time adjusting to the TL as they did the CL-S, they might have become more accustomed to the clutch and posted better numbers.

And did anyone else notice the 115-ft. stopping distance? I'm assuming they had the HPT model, but even so, that 115 is 7 feet shorter than Acura's predictions (a nice surprise, assuming the number is accurate).

 

re: Braking

115 feet is remarkable. They compared it to Porche-like performance!

So, while getting from 0-60 is a fun stat to compare, I think it's equally -- if not more -- impressive how well the TL gets from 60-0.

GREAT round-trip numbers!!

Jon

 

I do agree...the shifter is a little rubbery, but very short. I have no problems moving through the gears.

The slippery clutch, as noted by the review, is not present in my car. The clutch I have grabs as soon as you release it; second and third gear scratches are not uncommon when running hard. This can ony be achieved with VSA off. If VSA is on, the car will apply the brakes in order to keep the wheels from slipping.

 

I'll have to test-drive the 6MT myself (maybe today??) and see what this rubbery feel is all about. I currently happily row a 97 Integra GS.

Jon

 

Not true, nearly every number published for the 2002 TLS was 6.4 seconds or lower. I think one source stated 6.6 (Edmunds??). I've run 14.71@96.3 MPH at the track, stock and on a relatively hot day. Friend's G35 automatic ran slower than me and also trapped at a lower speed on the same day. Don't know how Honda did it, but believe me this car is a low to mid 6-second vehicle to 60. However, I'm disappointed that the numbers for the new manual aren't even better. I'll wait for more numbers and tests.

 

Thanks for posting the link to the review. Overall, very positive! It makes me wish that Acura had made the Brembo brakes standard on the automatic too. 115 feet to stop the 6MT car is INCREDIBLE. I wonder how fast the 5AT stops. We'll never find out, I'm sure--the auto mags are probably going to concentrate on the 6MT as an enthusuiast's car, rather than the 5AT.

 

You must be joking right? I said a tad under 7s. Last Car&Driver 10/2002 even reported 7.6s.

 

Saintor do you own a Type-S? A type-s over 7 second for the 0-60? I will admit that I havent ran any track times myself in my type-s but it feels faster than a 7 second 0-60 car? just my two cents... I guess it also depends on the track conditions too>>>

 

Btw - BMW rates their 530i ($44,300+) at 6.6s for the manual as a comparison, but one site I read says it feels slower that that. Not sure what mags are getting for it.

 

The rubbery comment probably comes from the fact that clutch has ZERO feedback in the pedal travel. It is probably the trickiest MT I have driven in a long time. Launching this car is going to take a ton of practice and a fair bit of skill. If in a single test day they can get a 6.3 with a 6MT then I have no doubt this car is sub 6 seconds. Tires would also be a rather large limitation on the stock car since they are pretty bad as far as grip goes.

 

I wish they would do a test on the damn auto. Every test I read is on the 6 speed. Please somebody test an auto.

 

Well, I've tested my 5AT, and will repeat the tests next week.

http://www.acura-tl.com/forum/showth...threadid=64189

-r

 

It was noted before that the NSX after some hard launches will slip also. Almost every car that I've had has done this after being driven extremely hard.

 

I found the clutch to be very low effort with minimal feedback but after two or three launches and runs up and down through the gears both my wife and I were adapted to it. A matter of knowing the engagement point and how bent your knee is! And the shifter is precise for a fwd car with short throws and good feel. We have owned about 20 manual shift cars over the past 35 years and this is way better than the average in clutch/shifter. It does not work as well as our S2000, but that would be the only car dramatically better in that respect.

 

If that was reported in 10/2002 I would imagine it was a 2003 TLS. I was talking about the 2002 model year. I'm not sure whether there are subtle differences between the two (I know 2003s have Onstart, etc.) but the lowest time published for the 2002 TLS was 6.18 and the highest was 6.6.

 

Actually it was 7.6 8n that Car and driver issue where lots of the cars did poor. I dont know why people are shocked at these numbers. The car wil only be a tad faster than the 6.3 tested when a better test comes up, automatics are just making better use of the power than they use to with better torque convertors that is why the times are so close now a days betwen manuals and their auto counterparts.

 

Thats kinda disappointing..to me anyway. I just thought it would at least be comparable to a CLS 6 speed. I mean, my brother w/ a cls 6 speed and my cuzin with a 98 m3 race all the time and they are always pretty damn even. 98 m3's are rated 5.5-5.7 0-60 too. They are both very very good stick drivers too. I was expecting the 04TL to be the same or faster...

 

FYI - I just test-drove the 6MT today. I don't understand what "rubbery" means exactly. I thought the shifting was pretty enjoyable myself.

Oh, and if you read my post on my test-drive, I was dumbstruck by its performance.

Jon

 

please post a pic of your time slip....

 

The results were never in doubt. They're just confirmation of what we all have been saying here. I can't wait for a comparo humiliation of the germans. It will give VW, BMW and Mercedes long term diarrhea!!!!!

 

...just out of curiosity, do you own a TL-S?


...the TL-S would be 7.6 seconds... with passengers.

 

I owned a TL-s...it was much faster than 7.6...MUCH!

 

Oh yea, on one test I remember they compared the TLS to a BMW 330 model (the fastest one with manual transmission) and although the TLS lost to it to 60, it was by 0.1 seconds and the TLS actually beat it in the quarter mile. This was the same BMW that had been tested repeatedly to pull sub-6 second times to 60 so the 7.6 time you mentioned probably had more to do with conditions of the test rather than potential of the car.

 

Yes in that test, Car and Driver later indicated it was done at high altitude, that is why all the numbers are off, unfortunately, they post that number in thier road test summary.

 

I don't think he would have posted what he did if he had a TLS. One quick drive should tell you its more capable than the older generation 200hp 4-speed Accord sedans.

 

I didn't that 7.6s was representative. For the THIRD time, I would say a tad under 7s. But 6.2-6.4s (autom.) is as much irrealistic. Beware oif G-Tech gizmos, I have one and it is way too much optimist.

 

The 02-03 TL-S was 6.5 secs, thank you very much (Road and Track). You NewBee's have never been in a TL-S, so stop dissin dem and talkin out your ears. Car and driver should never have posted that high-altitude test, either.

 

I don't have a G-Tech, so I can't comment on that. But based on my experience the times the Passport G-Timer GT2 gives are quite realistic, and what I'd expect.

-r

 

they are infamously inaccurate