harddrivin1le

http://www.sportmachines.com/magrack...ruck_6-91.html

The L98 Corvette referenced in that article ran 0 - 60 in 5.3 seconds and ran a 13.9 @ 99 MPH quarter mile. That's faster than the referenced NSX.

Do you still claim that "late 80s 'Vettes couldn't get out of their own way?"

Because if you do claim that, virtually every Acura ever built "can't get out of its own way."

What you read is wrong. MOTOR TREND got some bone stock, "late 80s" 'Vettes through the traps in under 14 seconds.

I have a 2007 Acura TL Type S. There's no way in hell it's as quick (or quicker) than the later L98 Corvettes.

"Late 80s" Corvettes are now almost 20 years old. You're 34. How many brand new, low mileage, well driven examples could you possibly have seen run a 1/4 mile?

fiveoh-tl

I can see you're big on magazine times.....that's too bad.

fiveoh-tl

You answered you're own question.......I'm 34 and they're 20 yrs old (not like I'm 20.....so I'm not sure what you meant by that). I've been around racing for a long time.......long enough to have seen at least a couple dozen go down the track.

harddrivin1le

How OLD were the cars you saw run?

REPEAT AFTER ME: "THE TYPICAL "LATE EIGHTIES" 6 SPEED CORVETTE IS ESSENTIALLY EVERY BIT AS QUICK AS A NEW ACURA TL TYPE S 6 SPEED."

harddrivin1le

I had an '88 5.0 liter Mustang Notch - lightly equipped with the 3.08 "performance" axle ratio.

I ordered it new. That was a lower 14 sec car. I played with SEVERAL "late 80s" Corvettes back then and not ONCE did I beat one.

I will scan and post a photo of me with the Mustang if you require proof.

The 'Vettes went pretty good - particularly so for other cars from that period.

What kind of quarter miles were bone stock Hondas posting in the late 1980s?

harddrivin1le

Here's a slew of results for "late 80s" (including '90 and '91, which were essentially identical) Corvettes. As you can see, lower to mid 14s was "typical" for the coupes. The heavier ragtops were slightly slower, but still quicker than a new Acura TL Type S automatic:

http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-qu...mile-times.htm

YEAR/MODEL....0-60...1/4 mile ET

1985 Chevrolet Corvette 5.7 14.1
1986 Chevrolet Corvette 5.8 14.4
1986 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible 6.0 14.5
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible 6.0 14.6
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 6.0 14.6
1990 Chevrolet Corvette 5.7 14.3
1991 Chevrolet Corvette L98 5.3 13.9
1991 Chevrolet Corvette Roadster 5.6 14.1

fiveoh-tl

The problem with that is there's no knowing who is stock and who isn't.......and the 14.5 and 14.6 kind of show what I'm saying......no?




Not sure if you mean me or the cars.....either way, do the math, it's pretty simple

First off I can't agree with your ridiculoud last statement cause I, unlike you, don't believe everything I read.....I kind of like to see it for myself. Second thing is why are you so hung up on comparing a v8 muscle car to an acura tl/tls??? Why don't you go argue about which is more comfortable or which weighs more before and after a trip to the A&P? I'm comparing things I've seen from personally experience......you're getting all hot and bothered cause Motor Trend told you what to think.

Get a grip.......life's too short.

harddrivin1le

Again. These are 8 different data points (not just the fastest). The later ones in particular ('89 and up) are a full match for a brand new, well driven, 6 speed TL Type S. They are ALL faster than my TL-S automatic.

http://www.exoticcarsite.com/0-60-qu...mile-times.htm

YEAR/MODEL....0-60...1/4 mile ET

1985 Chevrolet Corvette 5.7 14.1
1986 Chevrolet Corvette 5.8 14.4
1986 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible 6.0 14.5
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Convertible 6.0 14.6
1988 Chevrolet Corvette Z51 6.0 14.6
1990 Chevrolet Corvette 5.7 14.3
1991 Chevrolet Corvette L98 5.3 13.9
1991 Chevrolet Corvette Roadster 5.6 14.1

harddrivin1le

My 2007 Acura TL Type A automatic is about as quick as this bone stock, 1958 full size Chevy.

http://members.cox.net/harddrivin1le/58Chevy348.jpg

The Chevy ran a 15.2 @ 96 MPH quarter mile, but that was on very feeble, 1950s vintage rubber. The 96 MPH trap speed suggests upper 14 second potential. Fitted with some decent, modern performance tires, that Chevy would be AT LEAST as quick as my Acura TL-S auto....

I'm not particularly happy about that fact, but its fact nonetheless. That I happen to own a TL and have never owned a '58 Chevy has nothing whatsoever to do with my take on it.

fiveoh-tl

I in no way think that our TL-S' are "race cars" and/or are that fast.....but your auto '07 TLS stock w/ 1-2 gallons of gas, no spare, and TC off should go 14.5-14.9. I think you can beat that 15.2 second '58 Chevy.....keep the faith.

harddrivin1le

The Chevy's 96 MPH trap speed with those HORRID 1950s vintage tires suggests ~ 14.7 sec potential with rubber that equals that of a new TL-S. That rubber might also buy it an additional 1 MPH in trap speed.

So we could be looking at a 14.7 @ 97 MPH for the '58 Chevy and he could also run half a tank of gas and remove his spare.

This post suggests very high 14s for an '07 TL-S automatic. That seems right to me, since automatic V6 Accords and TLs are generally at least half a second slower than their manual counterparts:

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166690

"I was just at Union Grove Raceway in Wisconsin. They were having an Import Wars special event. The weather was great. 70 degrees and sunny.

The cars were getting great traction. The only TL there was an 07 TL-S
with an auto. Its best 1/4 mile was 14.85 seconds and the worst was 15.05."

Fitted with modern 235/45-17 performance rubber, that '58 Chevy would give my Acura one HELL of a run - up until about 100 MPH or so. After that it would run out of gear and into air.

Still, that's pretty funny considering that the Chevy is FIFTY years old and is nearly identical in weight to my TL-S automatic.

harddrivin1le

Just to make it clear, the '58 Chevy ran a 15.2 @ 96 MPH on 8.00 X 14 polyester tires.

Most people don't know what that means, since sizing standards have changed several times since then.

Here's an 8.00 X 14 tire (a reproduction). It's tread width is 4.58".

http://store.coker.com/product.php?p...1&cat=0&page=1

Install a set of those on the front of an Acura TL-S auto (or manual) and see what it runs. (The stock tires on a TL are 8" wide, are of radial construction and use a vastly superior tread compound.)

I think my '07 TL-S auto fitted with those tires would be lucky to run a 15.2 @ 96 MPH quarter mile.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Just because it's in another language, it doesn't mean it's a propaganda/marketing film. That's just like saying the English version of Car and Driver is a propaganda thing in Japan, that's just funny and pure non-sense. Besides, Best Motoring offers English versions (American accent by the way) of their videos (as I have said earlier), these videos are readily available and I am sure if you spend a little bit of time, you can find them easily.

http://www.livesockets.com/bmi.php#bestmotoring

Email them about the newest English version of Best Motoring.

The times you posted are for "Super Taikyu" series cars. Do you even know that that is? In short, it's like a Group N series of races in Japan. That means all of these are stripped out, with slick tires, and a long extensive list of mods. These are endurance races that last for about 500 laps. Below is the link to their official site. Why would you compare a race car to a road legal road car?

http://www.so-net.ne.jp/s-taikyu/

Please post something more relevant, instead of comparing race cars to road cars.

harddrivin1le

You are using a single source that is CLEARLY Honda sponsored and in a foreign language (Japanese) to "prove" that a Honda Civic is a faster track car than an Acura NSX.

You know NOTHING about the host of variables involved and are unable to produce a single AMERICAN source that can.

That Civic Type R is little different from any one of number of other econobox based performance cars.

I think a Mazda Speed 3 (MUCH quicker, a much broader power band, a 6 speed, an LSD and equal size brakes) would at least be able to stay with that Civic and the Mazda is NOTHING in terms of true performance car standards.

Here is an AMERICAN source - with known variables and some objective facts - that proves that statement. CLICK "DOWNLOAD THE RESULTS" after opening.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...-lap-2007.html

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

According to Car and Driver, a 2002 TL Type S 5AT can do 14.8@96mph in the summer with crappy OEM Michelin tires:

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...tl-type-s.html

I'd think a properly driven 2007 TL Type S 5AT to be faster than that even though it carries 100lbs more, the extra hp, torque, and traction are more than enough to compensate for the added weight.

harddrivin1le

How is that relevant to a 2007 TL Type S?

My TL-S weighs 3,674 pounds. What did that '02 weigh?

Your statements are purely speculative. You'll have to show me a DOCUMENTED case of an '07-'08 TL-S auto meeting or beating that performance.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Ok, show me proof that it's CLEARLY Honda sponsored.

I already posted the link from Edmunds showing that they tested the Civic Type R.

That's what you think about the Mazdaspeed 3, but you cannot prove it. How is that point more valid than mine?

Why use an American source? I live in Canada, I am from Asia, and this is the INTERNET, not AMERICANNet.

And what's so special about that link? There's only one Japanese car.

Here is a little more info of Best Motoring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Mo..._International

By saying they are sponsored by Honda, you've insulted those drivers. Those drivers drive for Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Subaru too. For instance, Manabu Orido, he drives for the Toyota team as shown:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manabu_Orido

Keiichi Tsuchiya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiichi_Tsuchiya) on the other hand, has driven for Honda (NSX), Nissan (GTR), and Toyota (GT One Lemans Race car). If you read it to the bottom, you will see that he has raced in Porsches, Fords, etc as well, not just Honda.

Still need more proof? Why don't you show me some proof that Best Motoring is sponsored by Honda first. And besides, that wouldn't make sense anyways, why would Honda want to make their NSX look bad by showing the Civic Type R faster? That would really hurt their reputation, don't you think so? Isn't that just common sense?

harddrivin1le

Cars that are similar in concept (and power to weight ratio) simply can't run with the big boys, which are able to carry MUCH more speed down the straights and into and out of corners.

Anyone who's ever been to an actual road racing circuit knows that.

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...tl-type-s.html

harddrivin1le

Cars that are similar in concept (and power to weight ratio) to the Civic R simply can't run with the big boys, which are able to carry MUCH more speed down the straights and into and out of corners.

Anyone who's ever been to an actual road racing circuit knows that.

This is but one tiny shred of evidence - written in English - with known stock cars and with all variables accounted for:

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...tl-type-s.html

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I don't know man, I never see any credible proof from you too. At least I am posting some relevant links/sources.

Why is it not relevant anyways, it's not like I am showing stats of a 1997 Maxima and say therefore the TL-S is faster.

The 2002 TL Type S weighs 3550lbs. Isn't that around 100lbs lighter (124lbs to be exact) like I've stated earlier?

Here's the proof:
http://www.caranddriver.com/cars/4032/acura-32tl.html

Since you like Physics so much, that's do some math.

Power to weight ratio of 02 TL-S AT: 3550lbs/260hp = 13.654lbs/hp
Power to weight ratio of 07 TL-S AT: 3674/286hp = 12.846lbs/hp

Clearly, the power ratio of the 07 model is much better. Then you have to consider the fact that 286hp was measured with the new SAE standard. Since the normal TL, which was rated 270hp before, is now rated 258hp, I would estimate that the old TL-S (2002) is around 250hp, would you agree with that? Well, even if you don't and insist on 260 and 286hp respectively, the power to weight ratio still favors the 07 TL-S. Let me guess, your next question is the difference in gear ratios?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

That's why I showed you results obtained by PROFESSIONAL RACE CAR DRIVERS. I even provided the link to their biography in case you are in doubt. Don't tell me those drivers don't count just because they are Japanese, that's racism.

harddrivin1le

You can't see the "hype" in that video?

Go to an ACTUAL ROAD RACING circuit and see how the heavily MODIFIED Civics compare against bone stock Corvettes. The Civics are close inside the actual corners, then get their asses blown off the second the road turns straight. The end results is many seconds per lap in favor of the 'Vettes.


Here is a "credible result" of an '07 TL-S automatic:

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166690

"I was just at Union Grove Raceway in Wisconsin. They were having an Import Wars special event. The weather was great. 70 degrees and sunny. The cars were getting great traction. The only TL there was an 07 TL-S with an auto. Its best 1/4 mile was 14.85 seconds and the worst was 15.05."

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

And are those professional race car drivers?

You were using Motortrend for proof, then I used Car and Driver, since both are car magazines. Now that I proved to that the 07 TL-S is not that slow, you are using something else. I don't see how those drivers in those "events" are any better than drivers from Car and Driver.

harddrivin1le

I own an '07 TL-S auto.

You therefore can't "prove" anything to me.

My 1988 Mustang was a faster car.

So was my 2006 V6/6 speed Accord coupe.

My '99 LS1 1LE 6 speed Z28 was in a whole different league than all of them. And the thought of that Civic R running with that 1LE on any actual road racing circuit is truly laughable.

Have you ever been to an ACTUAL ROAD RACING CIRCUIT to see how "well" the 4 cylinder cars fair against the big boys?

It's not even close.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Ok, if proving means not proving makes sense to you, fine.

I don't know much about 1988 Mustang, so I'm not gonna say anything about that. I don't argue about something unless I am I know and am sure about it.

2006 Accord V6 6MT, that's a fast car, and I have no trouble accepting that it's faster than a Auto TL-S. They can run low- mid 14's if I remember correctly.

Civic Type R, I've already showed you the links, you've seen the video yourself, you've seen the screenshot, I've showed you what "Edmunds" thinks about it. So whether you believe it or not, it's up to you. I understand it's hard to believe, since I am a big NSX fan too, and I was having trouble accepting that fact too. But then the Civic was driven by the same professional race car driver who's also a owner of several NSX's, he can't be wrong.

harddrivin1le

GO TO AN ACTUAL ROAD RACING CIRCUIT AND WATCH HOW "WELL" THE HEAVILY MODIFIED CIVICS FAIR AGAINST BONE STOCK C5 AND C6 CORVETTES.

IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE. I HAVE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES AT WATKINS GLEN AND LIME ROCK.

THE CIVIC'S POWER TO WEIGHT DEFICIT IS SIMPLY TOO GREAT.

On a personal note, I owned and drove a 1999 1LE Z28 for 6 years and 80,000 miles.

Many tricked out, modified Japanese (and German and American) cars tried.

Do you know how many beat me?

NOT ONE. And you're delusional if you think a 2,800 pound, 222 HP, torqueless Civic would have a prayer against that 1LE on anything other than a (very tight) autocross course.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I already asked, are those professional race car drivers, and proof?

harddrivin1le

Tell you what, kid.

I am done here.

Go drive any modified Civic you like, then drive new, bone stock Corvette (or even a used LS1 Camaro/Firebird).

The difference is so profound that I'm unable to describe it in words.

It's like an elephant stamping on a rat.

Have you ever even driven a truly fast car?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Hey man, I am just wondering, when did I ever claim a civic is faster than a Vette?

And, have you ever driven a Type R car before?

groovyone789

My dad had a 1984 Vette, he guarantees me that my car is faster on the straightaway or turns than his Vette ever was. And once again, the whole idea wasn't comparing to numbers in the 90's, we're comparing how those cars would run NOW. We can't bring the 07 TL-S back to 1992 to race them new vs. new. But we can race a 07 TL-S against a 1992 Vette in 2007. And don't tell me that a car is the same speed new as it is 15 years later.

harddrivin1le

Have you ever driven ANY car before.

You are 20 years old.

I'm 43, have a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and have been driving (and street racing) high performance cars since 1986. I've also attended multiple track events at actual road racing circuits involving both amateur and professional drivers and have been published in national magazines on MULTIPLE occasions.

Of the two, who do you think has the more accurate view of high performance cars and how they fair against one-another?

Some joker in an White Integra Type R tried messing with my 1LE Camaro on route 195 here about 5 or so years ago. The results were akin to a gorilla swatting a fly.

F23A4

This thread has degenerated into a pissing contest that need not be perpetuated any further (on Azine at least).