Who said TL wasn't fast enough
10-30-2004, 11:14 PM
#41
'06 750Li Sapphire/Creme
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC
Age: 61
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's sad when people generalize. My prior car was a sub 5 second car (Stock). It was a true "sleeper". That was one of the things I liked most about it...
Originally Posted by AcuraVic
Hmmm... so when those posters say 'the TL is not as fast as my "what ever" used to be ' They are really saying, 'hey, I'm special, I'm one of the few drivers that have owned a car with a 0-60 time in the low 6's and maybe in the 5's'. Look at me!!!
By the way, the TL is fast enough for me. I have owned many Honda's, the fastest being a 91 Prelude (before this 04/TL). I bought this car because it is the 'TOTAL PACKAGE', looks, brains, brawn, especially LOOKS. It is a great TOY!!! and might I add, the family car.
By the way, the TL is fast enough for me. I have owned many Honda's, the fastest being a 91 Prelude (before this 04/TL). I bought this car because it is the 'TOTAL PACKAGE', looks, brains, brawn, especially LOOKS. It is a great TOY!!! and might I add, the family car.
10-31-2004, 07:35 AM
#42
Registered Member
To Cheetah19:
You wrote,
"What I love about the TL is that it is a beautiful car inside and out and has enough power, speed, and acceleration to compliment the awesome luxury features inside while still giving you a solid, quite ride."
I couldn't agree more with this statement. Though I would like a touch more exhaust note to serve as an aid when shifting gears, this is one heck of a car. Capable is the word that comes to mind.
You wrote,
"What I love about the TL is that it is a beautiful car inside and out and has enough power, speed, and acceleration to compliment the awesome luxury features inside while still giving you a solid, quite ride."
I couldn't agree more with this statement. Though I would like a touch more exhaust note to serve as an aid when shifting gears, this is one heck of a car. Capable is the word that comes to mind.
10-31-2004, 08:06 PM
#43
Police
Originally Posted by tl_soso
i gotta agree with Eggroll here - the TL is really quick in 2nd/3rd gear - but its not fast. I've raced an Audi A4T and the damn thing kept up longer than it should have. I beat it, but it was really tough.
The TL got almost the same accelation with my 350z... (well, maybe a little bit slower...) but it is fast ~ and 270hp
is just enough for a FF car...
oh BTW: I got a vedio in my computer which recorded how an A4 1.8t smoked a BMW M3 for twice...
maybe u raced with the A4 which was in that vedio i mentioned...
11-01-2004, 07:10 AM
#46
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: leave of absence
Age: 43
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By Comparing FAST car vs QUICK car by definition could get into some major discussions. I really thought about a LS1 (SS or Camaro) a few months ago, but decided on luxury + some sports hence I bought myself a TL. Soon, I will be looking a 2nd car that's going to be headed to TRACK every other weekend during summer .. hence (some American V8, most likely a used LS1). I don't race on the street, it's too dangerous and not worth getting points on my license and very pointless. I don't hate RICERs nor American V8s, because
WHEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, you CAN make ANY CARs QUICK from 0-60mph...it's all about the $$$$$
WHEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, you CAN make ANY CARs QUICK from 0-60mph...it's all about the $$$$$
11-01-2004, 08:08 AM
#47
Team Anthracite Member
Can we at least agree that pure raw speed isn't the only measure of a car's performance? I mean, yes, these American muscle cars can rip through the 1/4 mile in less than 11 seconds, but are they the kind of cars you'd want to be driving on route 1 on the Californian coast? I don't think so... you want a car that can take those twists and turns and grab the road yet still give you some pep. Personally, I'd rather be driving my TL (or even my old beloved 2000 Prelude - I miss you Trinity) than a Mustang on those roads. But that's just me. 
11-01-2004, 08:09 AM
#48
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Big Apple
Age: 62
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheMainEvEnt
By Comparing FAST car vs QUICK car by definition could get into some major discussions. I really thought about a LS1 (SS or Camaro) a few months ago, but decided on luxury + some sports hence I bought myself a TL. Soon, I will be looking a 2nd car that's going to be headed to TRACK every other weekend during summer .. hence (some American V8, most likely a used LS1). I don't race on the street, it's too dangerous and not worth getting points on my license and very pointless. I don't hate RICERs nor American V8s, because
WHEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, you CAN make ANY CARs QUICK from 0-60mph...it's all about the $$$$$
WHEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY, you CAN make ANY CARs QUICK from 0-60mph...it's all about the $$$$$
i think the interesting # to have is the $ per 1/10th sec spent for 1/4 mile run. i never like those "stock car" or "oem body" contests becauses so much modification is done they are no way near stock anymore. i just like "build it fast and cheap anyway you can"
11-01-2004, 08:42 AM
#49
Intermediate
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA
Age: 63
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was watching SPEED channel the other day and they had a show in which they took all of the top muscle cars, Boss 429, Hemi Cuda, Olds 455, and tried to determine which was the fastest. These cars were restored to completely stock condition, including tires. I do not remember specifics, but what was clear was how far modern cars have com.
11-01-2004, 09:36 AM
#50
Cruisin'
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Linden, NJ
Age: 46
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow.. WORST TOPIC EVER.
Speed is all relative. In getting around, the TL is fast enough. In racing, it is not.
I had a clk55 and it was FAST but I did not get to use it that much. Sure I could floor it to a certain speed but you have to be careful. In NY, if you get caught going over 100 you spend the night in jail (not fun).
Maybe I got old but I think the TL is "fast enough" for what I need everyday. If I want to go fast, I will jump in a mooney (plane) and cruise at over 240mph (and I do not have to worry about the cops). :P
Speed is all relative. In getting around, the TL is fast enough. In racing, it is not.
I had a clk55 and it was FAST but I did not get to use it that much. Sure I could floor it to a certain speed but you have to be careful. In NY, if you get caught going over 100 you spend the night in jail (not fun).
Maybe I got old but I think the TL is "fast enough" for what I need everyday. If I want to go fast, I will jump in a mooney (plane) and cruise at over 240mph (and I do not have to worry about the cops). :P
11-01-2004, 09:15 PM
#52
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmond, OK
Age: 37
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tecworld
2 or 3 of the sedans that eggroll posted as fast are slower or equal to the TL in acceleration.
11-01-2004, 09:33 PM
#53
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EggrollXpress61
I doubt it. Call me on them and ill eat my own words.
Examples of pretty fast-fast Sedans cuz Murdock is a dumb ass and doesnt know jack shit about cars......E55AMG, CTS-V, S55 AMG,Jaguar XJ or S Type, C55AMG, C32AMG, Audi RS6, Audi S4, Infiniti M45, Chrysler 300c, Impreza STi, Evo........Boo yah! ya dumb ass. Jump up your own arse and die! muahahah!
Certainly, the E55, CTS-V, S55, C55, C32, RS6, Sti, and Evo are significantly faster, all running 5.3 seconds to sixty or better. The S4 runs a few ticks slower, say 5.3-5.5.
The Jaguar XJ and S-Type are not faster in normal trim. The XJ-R and S-Type R are a bit faster, but not as much as you would think, particularly the S-Type.
It is my understanding the current Infiniti M45 runs high 5s to sixty and low 14s like the TL. The 300C is also about equal. The first 300C tested ran a 5.3/13.9, but more recent tests have been 5.7-6.0 and low 14s, which is TL territory (C&D ran a 5.7/14.2).
11-01-2004, 09:56 PM
#54
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmond, OK
Age: 37
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road and Track Magazine:
Acura TL:
3.2 L, V-6, 6 speed Manual
0-50 4.80 sec.
0-60 6.30 sec.
Road and Track Magazine:
XJR 4.2 L, V-8sc, 6 speed Automatic
0-50 3.90 sec.
0-60 5.10 sec.
NOTE THE AUTOMATIC TOO! A WHOLE SECOND FASTER 0-60
Jaguar S-Type 4.2-Liter R
Manufacturer:
4.2 L, V-8s, 6 speed Automatic
0-60 5.30 sec.
CD 0.31
IssueApr-04
Top Speed155.00 mph
The M45 runs about the same as the TL. The time C&D said was 0-60 5.9sec in my 04' new car guide issue.
In the same issue, the new car it says the 300C ran a 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.
To be fair, drawing from the same issue. THEIR Acura TL ran a 0-60 in 5.80 seconds. So thus I am right. Theyre close.....but no cigar.
The S-type I meant the R. and that 0-60 sec of the TL of 5.8 sec is the best time ive seen. Must have been a good driver.
Acura TL:
3.2 L, V-6, 6 speed Manual
0-50 4.80 sec.
0-60 6.30 sec.
Road and Track Magazine:
XJR 4.2 L, V-8sc, 6 speed Automatic
0-50 3.90 sec.
0-60 5.10 sec.
NOTE THE AUTOMATIC TOO! A WHOLE SECOND FASTER 0-60
Jaguar S-Type 4.2-Liter R
Manufacturer:
4.2 L, V-8s, 6 speed Automatic
0-60 5.30 sec.
CD 0.31
IssueApr-04
Top Speed155.00 mph
The M45 runs about the same as the TL. The time C&D said was 0-60 5.9sec in my 04' new car guide issue.
In the same issue, the new car it says the 300C ran a 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.
To be fair, drawing from the same issue. THEIR Acura TL ran a 0-60 in 5.80 seconds. So thus I am right. Theyre close.....but no cigar.
The S-type I meant the R. and that 0-60 sec of the TL of 5.8 sec is the best time ive seen. Must have been a good driver.
11-01-2004, 10:15 PM
#55
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by EggrollXpress61
Road and Track Magazine:
The M45 runs about the same as the TL. The time C&D said was 0-60 5.9sec in my 04' new car guide issue.
In the same issue, the new car it says the 300C ran a 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.
To be fair, drawing from the same issue. THEIR Acura TL ran a 0-60 in 5.80 seconds. So thus I am right. Theyre close.....but no cigar.
The S-type I meant the R. and that 0-60 sec of the TL of 5.8 sec is the best time ive seen. Must have been a good driver.
The M45 runs about the same as the TL. The time C&D said was 0-60 5.9sec in my 04' new car guide issue.
In the same issue, the new car it says the 300C ran a 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.
To be fair, drawing from the same issue. THEIR Acura TL ran a 0-60 in 5.80 seconds. So thus I am right. Theyre close.....but no cigar.
The S-type I meant the R. and that 0-60 sec of the TL of 5.8 sec is the best time ive seen. Must have been a good driver.
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=100908
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 5.99 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 6.41 sec
0-quarter-mile: 14.51 sec @ 98 mph
Your own numbers show the M45 to be slower than the TL.
You may have meant R, but you didn't say R.
Let me know how those words taste going down . . .
11-02-2004, 03:41 PM
#57
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pro Stock John
Which magazine tested the TL and got 14.2?
Temple of VTEC also got a 14.2:
We ripped off repeated 14.4 runs in the 97-98 mph range until we finally managed to nail a nearly perfect launch and extract a 14.20 @ 98 mph pass with a 2.16 60 ft. All this in a 3500 lbs car with half a tank of gas, 200+ lbs of driver and camera equipment on factory tires at stock pressures.
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-ar...&page_number=4
11-02-2004, 03:50 PM
#58
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by EggrollXpress61
Road and Track Magazine:
Acura TL:
3.2 L, V-6, 6 speed Manual
0-50 4.80 sec.
0-60 6.30 sec.
Road and Track Magazine:
XJR 4.2 L, V-8sc, 6 speed Automatic
0-50 3.90 sec.
0-60 5.10 sec.
NOTE THE AUTOMATIC TOO! A WHOLE SECOND FASTER 0-60
Jaguar S-Type 4.2-Liter R
Manufacturer:
4.2 L, V-8s, 6 speed Automatic
0-60 5.30 sec.
CD 0.31
IssueApr-04
Top Speed155.00 mph
The M45 runs about the same as the TL. The time C&D said was 0-60 5.9sec in my 04' new car guide issue.
In the same issue, the new car it says the 300C ran a 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.
To be fair, drawing from the same issue. THEIR Acura TL ran a 0-60 in 5.80 seconds. So thus I am right. Theyre close.....but no cigar.
The S-type I meant the R. and that 0-60 sec of the TL of 5.8 sec is the best time ive seen. Must have been a good driver.
Acura TL:
3.2 L, V-6, 6 speed Manual
0-50 4.80 sec.
0-60 6.30 sec.
Road and Track Magazine:
XJR 4.2 L, V-8sc, 6 speed Automatic
0-50 3.90 sec.
0-60 5.10 sec.
NOTE THE AUTOMATIC TOO! A WHOLE SECOND FASTER 0-60
Jaguar S-Type 4.2-Liter R
Manufacturer:
4.2 L, V-8s, 6 speed Automatic
0-60 5.30 sec.
CD 0.31
IssueApr-04
Top Speed155.00 mph
The M45 runs about the same as the TL. The time C&D said was 0-60 5.9sec in my 04' new car guide issue.
In the same issue, the new car it says the 300C ran a 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.
To be fair, drawing from the same issue. THEIR Acura TL ran a 0-60 in 5.80 seconds. So thus I am right. Theyre close.....but no cigar.
The S-type I meant the R. and that 0-60 sec of the TL of 5.8 sec is the best time ive seen. Must have been a good driver.
11-02-2004, 03:51 PM
#59
Registered Member
In the May, '04 issue, Car and Driver managed a 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and a quarter mile in 14.3 seconds at 99 MPH using an A-Spec version of the '04 TL.
11-02-2004, 03:53 PM
#60
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
In the May, '04 issue, Car and Driver managed a 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and a quarter mile in 14.3 seconds at 99 MPH using an A-Spec version of the '04 TL.
11-02-2004, 05:25 PM
#62
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SouthernBoy
Car and Driver's "Road Test Digest" index does not indicate this, but if you know which issue, I'd love to read it.
11-02-2004, 05:41 PM
#63
101 years of heartache...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago's North Side/Champaign, IL
Age: 37
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not stay in the class of the TL of itself?
The G35 reigns supreme in that class because of its big beefy over used 3.5L V6. Plenty of torque (265?) make up for only 5 HP lost to the TL's 3.2L engine. Remember, however, the TL is only a 3.2L engine. We all know what Honda can do with 3.5L V6's..
The CTS, ES330, G35, and 300C are all pretty nice cars. The G35 is the fastest, but not by much. Besides, the trade-off to all that speed is taking one of most crappy interiors the luxury world has to offer (nothing says cheap like seeing "Gladware" on the center console of a G35's interior). The TL has the best blend of power, materials, and luxury in the class. Clearly, it has the best technology with Bluetooth, Solar-Sensing Climate Control, DVD-Audio, and Voice Recognition to offer. The ES330 has the best materials, the Caddy looks great and is built very well, and the 300C is pretty cool too. But for my money, the TL takes it away, despite its being built in Ohio (I personally have a grudge on American-built cars).
Oh and by the way, why not flame the TL and say an M5 can smoke it on the track.
, compare cars in the same class.
The G35 reigns supreme in that class because of its big beefy over used 3.5L V6. Plenty of torque (265?) make up for only 5 HP lost to the TL's 3.2L engine. Remember, however, the TL is only a 3.2L engine. We all know what Honda can do with 3.5L V6's..
The CTS, ES330, G35, and 300C are all pretty nice cars. The G35 is the fastest, but not by much. Besides, the trade-off to all that speed is taking one of most crappy interiors the luxury world has to offer (nothing says cheap like seeing "Gladware" on the center console of a G35's interior). The TL has the best blend of power, materials, and luxury in the class. Clearly, it has the best technology with Bluetooth, Solar-Sensing Climate Control, DVD-Audio, and Voice Recognition to offer. The ES330 has the best materials, the Caddy looks great and is built very well, and the 300C is pretty cool too. But for my money, the TL takes it away, despite its being built in Ohio (I personally have a grudge on American-built cars).
Oh and by the way, why not flame the TL and say an M5 can smoke it on the track.
, compare cars in the same class.
11-03-2004, 03:23 PM
#65
Instructor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: DFW,TX area
Age: 51
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well lets just see what the improved 05 G35 Sedan has on the TL with its increased horsepower of 20hp with auto and 38hp with the manual. With those cars Eggroll mentioned that are close to the TL it takes a manual TL to get close to their automatics due to various reasons, if it were auto to auto they clearly have the advantage M45,300C etc. Now if they offered the 300C or M45 with a manual it would have a big advantage over the manual TL again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jterp7
3G MDX (2014-2020)
9
02-03-2016 08:34 PM
Yumcha
Automotive News
1
09-25-2015 06:14 PM