ifirahse

iTrader: (6)

I know manual cars are usually faster, but from reading these forums, it seems like the 6MT TL-S is much much faster than the 5AT. Why is this?

Also, what's the 0-60 of a manual TL-s vs. an automatic?

Bearcat94

It's faster, no doubt. The MT is ~90 lbs lighter and has better gearing for acceleration,

But "much, much"? Depends on what you think "much" means.

At the end of the day, it's still a driver's race. A crummy 6MT driver vs. a competent 5AT driver and you've got a a race.

Npbody (AFAIK) has published 5AT 0-60 times. Auto mags always seem to get the 6MT.

From what I've seen/read, I'd say the 6MT is ~5.9 and the 5AT ~6.3.

(assuming all stock).

Acuraluvr

iTrader: (2)

to each his own, i dont see a HUGE difference... perhaps .1-.3

faster shifts, limited slip diff.

from what i see, 0-60 for auto is as fast as 5.9, stick is 5.7 (fastest tests ive seen)

1st is from mt, the stick came from c&d i think

ifirahse

iTrader: (6)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...type_s_feature

This surprised me. C&D says 5.5 (obviously 6mt).

I hate cars

Very well said.

I agree, gearing and weight more than anything.

Generally speaking higher revving/lower torque cars like the TL benefit more from a manual.

With a 90lb difference in the front, it answers the question as to why the manuals get a bigger rear sway bar.

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

Those numbers are more in line with the base model. Various mags have run 6MT base TL's to 60 in anywhere from 5.7-5.9 (Car and Driver got 5.6 in an '04 A-Spec) and 6.3-6.5 for the 5AT. Type S 6MT is generally around 5.5. As far as the Type S 5AT, it's never been officially mag tested, but figure around 5.9-6.0. It's actually no quicker than the base 6MT with a good driver. The reason the sticks are so much faster is partially weight related, but manual transmission efficiency plays a larger role; they simply put ~20/15 more HP/TQ to the wheels in these cars. Torque converters consume a lot of power. Keep in mind however, there are other manufacturers who make very efficient automatics, like the ones in the IS350 and 335.

godfather2

the 6spd has a lsd, correct?

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

^^Yep.

Bearcat94

You're right. R&T had 5.7, not 5.9. So call the 5AT ~6.1 for the zero to 60.

I've not seen the MT at 5.5, but for the sake of agruement, assume the 5AT to be 3 or 4 tenths slower that the MT.


Compared to the Vast Majority of cars on the road, any car that'll do 0 - 60 in around 6 seconds is pretty damn quick.

dr_brains510

to the op, i feel that there is NOT a huge difference...i've hit 60 in 5.9 and sometimes 6.0 sec on my 5AT TLS. That's stock too.

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

Check out Ifirahse's link above. That one hit 5.5/14.1 Still kind of depressing it can't hit 13's stock.

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

(Also depressing one of the mags ran a 14 flat with an '08 Accord Coupe 6MT)

ifirahse

iTrader: (6)

This thread makes me depressed.

acuraman211

you should only be depressed if your name is Vin Diesel and you live life a quarter mile at a time.

In any case, I hear alot of ppl comparing the TL with accords.... so what if they can outperform the TL's. I dont think you can really compare the luxuriousness between the two.

TL>accord

SouthernBoy

Just remember. FWD cars are not known for having decent traction. That is the biggest obsticle to overcome with a stock FWD car.

stillhere153

iTrader: (1)

southernboy is correct, if you were to be able to get traction from the standstill it would shave 1 full second + off the times...

try it 17x10 with slicks on... rofl

JCL622

i've always wanted to try to slap on a pair of slicks on a FWD A/T lol

WRXtranceformed

Remember too, some of the fastest street driven drag cars have A/Ts. With a higher stall torque converter and / or different gears, autos can be a lot faster than most M/Ts unless John Force is behind the wheel.

JCL622

that made my day

MINIFVR

It takes a pretty good driver in a M/T TL to be faster in the same car with an A/T. As said above, it the weight difference, gearing, and LSD are the main factors, not so much that the car has a stick.

Ibn Rushd

Car and driver got 5.5 out of their TL Type S, when they compared the "fastest" sedans between 30k and 40k

also on the list;

Dodge Charger
BMW 335
Mitsu Lancer Evo
Lexus IS350
Infiniti G35


That made up the top 5

TL placed 7th with a 0-60 of 5.5 - this was a 6spd.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...re+page-5.html


Car and Driver also got 5.9 0-60 for a 6speed TL...


http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test


Hope that helps

t0talacuratl

iTrader: (3)

Anyone know the percentage for hp loss between tranny and wheel for a M/T?

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

~14%

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

Over a full second? That would put the car at 13.1. Aint happening. DR's would shave 2-3/10 at best. Watch an IS350 launch. It chirps and hooks, and with 20 more hp and 20 more tq than a TypeS, the best it can pull is ~13.5. I could see a stock S 6MT possibly run 13.8 on drag radials.

nyclio

Is the automatic any better or faster if you use the paddle shifters instead? Are there optimal up/down shift points?

I hate cars

A full second if it were pushing 400hp...


On a manual with slicks, I could see a solid .5 second, maybe more. You should be able to dump the clutch at 5,500 or more and hook.

With the auto, at least mine, it doesn't really have traction problems on street tire. With a high stall convertor it would probably be able to take advantage of slicks.

I do believe drag radials or slicks would put an IS350 and manual TL-S on level playting fields. The IS350 doesn't have enough stall/power to take advantage of the extra traction while a manual TL-S could definately take advantage.

SatinSilverAV6

iTrader: (2)

why would that depress you? Thats great that Honda has dropped the 3.5L in the Accord. Its the same engine as the TL-S with a lower compression ratio.

vincethe1

it is actually much, much faster...especially at high speeds..over 100mph the 5at lags in 4th, while the 6mt in 4th is pulling hard, i drove an automatic loaner and it took forever to get to 133mph and then it just didn't seem to want to go any faster, my 6mt gets to 150 way faster....130 comes up in no time.

vincethe1

car and driver also got 5.7 0-60 for the 6TM TL when it came out in 2004.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test

5.8 here.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...a_tl_road_test

5.7 here.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...cs+page-2.html

5.6 here for the a-spec...but with a slower 1/4 mile.....hmmm

TeknoKing

^^^ read more threads....5AT TL-S is limited to 132-134 mph... so MT is not much much faster...

You guys are not comparing apples and oranges, but same identical vehicle and engine with a different transmission... This is all about the driver, and if you are pretty good at manual, you will be faster without a doubt, but for an average manual driver...it's the same.

My club's supra is ""much much faster""...1400+hp.

vincethe1

^^they must have changed the limiter on the 07 TLs then....because when my limiter cuts at 150mph you feel the throttle shut, and when it goes back to about 147 it cuts in again, you can definately fell the fuel cut.

for 07 if it's smooth and starts cruising at 133 then ok...but i know that 04-06 automatics don't have the limiter at 133, because i've seen many pick up 140+...just a lot slower than the MT.

it's about the driver in the lower speeds i agree...but when you're flooring the car and waiting at 100mph+ then the less resistance and different gearing of the MT is where the car outshines the automatic.

and btw my loaner was a TL-P, not a TL-S

i have an 06 6MT TL

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

Because I think it's depressing that an Accord is roughly as fast, if not faster than the top of the line TL. I wouldn't expect it to bother you since you own an Accord!

I hate cars

Don't forget all that heat the auto generates, that's where most of your power loss is. The torque convertor is not 100% efficient where a non-slipping clutch is. I paid $900 for a racing torque convertor that's 97% efficient. OEM convertors are much less.

vincethe1

The Accord just came out, the TL is about to be changed...so it's ok.

Besides, the Accord isn't faster than the TL-S, and the TL-S still has a more powerful engine...so the TL is still "better" if it concerns you that much.

if there's something that should bother you, it's that the top of the line TL has always been faster, much faster than the top of the line RL....but it's understandable since one is a "Sports Sedan", the other a "Luxury Sedan".

SatinSilverAV6

iTrader: (2)

I don't own a 8th gen accord though!

The TL-S is still based off the 7th gen so once the 09 TL comes out I am sure things will change. Same thing happend when the 03 Accord V6 came out with 240HP and a 6MT. The Accord was faster than the TL-S and was as fast as a CL-S 6MT. Most owners wouldn't get the TL because its faster but because its more luxurious and upscale over the Accord. Faster is a bonus though!

007TL-S

that much is true!

jumbosizeme79

top end speed between both should be the same, but the mt gets it done quicker.

anx1300c

iTrader: (2)

I wouldn't be so sure of that statement. MT ran one at 14.0@102.5. That's better than any test of a TL-S 6MT and a lot quicker than a TL-S 5AT.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...fications.html

IlovemyAcura

WTF!?!!?!??!?!?

300 Faster than my beloved TL


r u fuckin kiddding me...

like wtf....i'm pissed

those things r POS'd from the floor up man


my life has been destroyd

Aman

300C= 340hp 390 lb-ft RWD
TL-S=286 hp FWD

I wouldn't call them POSs.


But there are many things that affect acceleration times. Here are just some:

driver
mileage
tire condition
test conditions
altitude (especially w/ forced inductions)
as mentioned above, it ultimately comes down to the driver.