EluSiOn

i own a 2004 tl... and actually Nissan Skyline or Infinity G35 coupe is a better car in terms of a sport sedan... the rear drive is fun to drive... however, its interior just sucked... I can't imagine for a car in the 36k range uses those cheapo component for interior ....

for the c/p (cost/performance) ratio, 04 TL is the best bang for the buck.

my only regret of 04 TL is that it is a FWD not a RWD...

digital_b

I may be wrong but I am pretty sure the skyline is a .... COUPE.
the g35 coupe is a ...... COUPE. therefore neither car is analogous to the term SPORT SEDAN. even if the skyline isnt a coupe you cannot buy it in the usa. therefore comparing these cars to a tl is senseless. and again for the love of [insert deity here] stay on topic or drop it please.

harddrivin1le

You mispresent Lexus cars. I've already proven you FLAT OUT WRONG on several counts.

EXAMPLE:

http://www.lexus.com/models/ls/performance.html

"To add to its remarkable engine, the LS features Variable Valve Timing with intelligence (VVT-i)..."

You obviously don't have THE SLIGHTEST IDEA of what you're talking about.

The SC430 uses essentially the same engine, but adds "variable induction."

http://www.lexus.com/models/sc/performance.html

"The SC...is equipped with an Acoustic Control Induction System (ACIS) to adjust intake tract length...."

Now, explain to me what you mean by the term "advanced metals."

The LS430's engine churns out 320 lb-ft of torque, which is 35%more than the TL's engine can produce.

The LS1 in my 1999 Z28 Camaro uses 1 cam (in the block), pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder and NONE of the little tricks you're talking about. Yet, it's EPA rated @ 19 city/28 highway, produces ~ 350 HP in showroom stock trim and makes enough low end torque to yank the front end off your TL @ idle.

What good is "new cutting edge technology" if it's unable to do what a simple pushrod V8 can?

I don't even own a Lexus (or a Toyota).

I do own an '04 Accord EX/V6. That fact doesn't mean that I'm going to start making false accusations against other brands.

Lexus sold 40% more vehicles than Acura in the US last year, despite the fact that Acura was formed before Lexus. Why is that?

http://www.forbes.com/vehicles/2004/..._0223feat.html

Skeedatl

1LE is a dumbass mullethead troller who doesn't even own a TL.

EluSiOn

quantity != quality..

ford sells more Focus than ferrari..... does it mean ford car is better than ferrari?

lexus/toyota sells more car than Acura/Honda, it only means lexus/toyota has as better brand recognition/ market scheme and they are more successful in terms of running a business

harddrivin1le

Lexus consistantly rates higher than Acura in terms of quality, and dependability and total cost of ownership:

Examples:

http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/power9_20030709.htm

http://www.toyota.com/about/news/pro...5-1-lexus.html

vtechbrain

Harddrivinle is a lexus troll he's on the ignore list.

harddrivin1le

I'm a realist who makes claims that can be backed by FACTUAL sources.

Skeedatl

He's a dumbass troll in general. Whether it's B.S. lies about H.I.D., the "cam only" 10s Slomero or his own plastic P.O.S. rattlebox Slomero, he's always trolling.

mspence3

The fact that you are preaching the differences between a Camry and an ES330, and then in an earlier post on this same thread you tell us that your Accord is practically a TL is absurd.

Skeedatl

Ignore him, he is a trolling 'tard.

cybermatrix

My answering machine must have a higher sampling rate than the XM signal I often get. But I suppose it gives it that high-tech artificial techno kinda sound...
On second thought XM sux.

harddrivin1le

Show me where I claimed that an Accord is "practically a TL."

I am pointing out the ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS that people on here like to make about other makes. The ES330 and the Camry DO NOT USE all of the same body panels.

The fact of the mater is that Accord V6 is to the TL what the ES330 is to the Camry V6, generally speaking.

The TL leans a bit more towards the performance end while the ES330 leans a bit more towards the luxury end (e.g. REAL wood in the interior).

harddrivin1le

Let's see....

Your TL is a ~ 3,550 pound car producing 230 RWHP...

My Camaro 1LE is 160 pounds lighter than that and produces perhaps 100 MORE RWHP...But it's a "Slo"maro?

The car is 5.5 years old, has 73K miles on it and has NO rattles.

NONE

And it will SUCK THE HEADLIGHTS out of your glorified Accord while getting comparable fuel economy in the process.:p

svtmike

This has nothing to do with XM sound quality, and is profoundly uninteresting.

And the TL produces 0 RWHP.

Mike

mspence3

There it is.

harddrivin1le

And that statement is true...

It is ESSENTIALLY the same car.

And automatic vs automatic, there isn't much difference between the performance of those two cars.

The TL has 30 more HP, but is also has an extra 191 pounds of weight to cart around.

MikeRadio

I am glad someone else realizes this also.. does ANYONE else here notice that XM is just BETTER in like someone with an aftermarket or in a house... especially in the high range..??

I don't tink I am imaginging things here... the stereo seperation in the TL is almost nonexistent..

Someone posted earlier some technical stuff about ow the middle channel is accomplished.. amybe that has to do with it..

However, Acura really should look for a current model or future model fix for this...

XM just does NOT seem bad to me using other sources.

But even with the way it sounds in the TL, I couldnt imagine being without it!!! It would be like getting rid of Direct TV or cable... could you imagine??? 5 chanels or whatver?? Thats like the way it was before XM!

mspence3

That was my original quote. I stand by it because that's exactly what happened.

harddrivin1le

Again, there are MANY differences (including sheetmetal) between the Camry and the Lexus ES330. The fact that is an Acura board doesn't change those facts.

The TL produces ~ 18 more drive wheel HP and is 191 pounds than an Accord V6. In my book and in terms of acceleration performace, that is ESSENTIALLY the same.

And the cars share the same damn platform, including their 107.9 inch wheelbase. Same tranny...same suspension geometry...same basic engine (punched out and higher CR in the Acura, mostly to offset its added weight), etc..

The TL is an Accord in a Tuxedo....:wow:

svtmike

But you'll argue til you're blue in the face that you never said they are PRACTICALLY the same, even though practically wasn't in quotes and "essentially the same" and "practically the same" in practice mean the same thing.

Mike

mspence3

The last sentence is nothing but bait. I wont play that!

Everything else just proves my point. The only difference is that this time you wrapped it up nicely in one post.

lindros2

I think even worse - the MUSIC CONTENT is poor.

Sirius has far better content (in my opinion) but inferior satellites. and it's a moot point, unless I got an Infiniti G35...

harddrivin1le

I'm quite happy with XM in my Accord...

I guess a lot of it depends on one's taste in music.

bdowell

My question for the queer above is...

You don't own a TL?
You don't want a TL?
You don't even like the TL?
So why the F*ck are you here?

Oh and for the topic at hand,
I'm quite impressed with the quality of XM.

harddrivin1le

I'm sorry...what does (falsely) alleged sexual preference have to do with automobiles?

I'd have bought a TL if A-spec were offered as a reasonably priced (~ $1,900) FACTORY/RPO option....

I still may buy one IF they do that...

As it stands now I won't buy one because I refuse to pay $40K for what amounts to a Honda Accord with nicer sheet metal, stiffer springs and larger wheels and tires.

mspence3

And HID's!

harddrivin1le

Right...and HIDs.

But I don't want those, since the halogens on the Accord work just fine.

mspence3

As well as the strut tower brace, and the fog lights, and the heated mirrors, and the.......

You know? I think you know don't you?

Houtxtl

Yes XM is somewhat 'compressed'. But it seems to vary according to the station. The 80's channel sounds somewhat metallic and has a barrel-esque twinge to it. But the jazz and classical sound pretty good if you ask me. And considering I am going to drop between 15 and 20 thousand on my next home audio system, one could say that I am aware of high quality sound.
However, XM is FAR more entertaining than FM. I live in Houston, and the radio here SUCKS. I'm sick of the same 10 songs played over and over by the 'talented' on-air personalities in between the 40 commercials.
People are just never happy.
"We're sick of corporate radio! We want more!"
Well, its here.

I went from four radio station choices to over 100.
Support it now because if it fails, FM will be your only choice.

DNA

XM isn't just "somewhat" compressed, it is extremely compressed. Calculations based on XM's on specifications indicate that the average channel bit rate is about 64 Kbps. CD (which is uncompressed), on the other hand is 1411.2 Kbps. That's a compression of over 22 times! You'd be able to get over 26 hours of music on a single CD if it used XM compression.

Everyone has different sensitivity to digital compression artifacts, but one thing you can't say is that XM is "somewhat" compressed.
Although neither XM nor Sirius will be in the black for awhile, it doesn't look like they are in any fear of making it. For example, here's this from 1/23/04 Yahoo/BusinessWeek:

Houtxtl

I realize that XM is very compressed. I meant it as a slight joke, thus the 'quotes' around the word compressed.
Regardless of compression, the sheer variety and reasonably clear sound
outweigh the occasional drawbacks of the compression used.
And, this paragraph is from the same article you quoted.


STILL, BEFORE WE ALL AGREE that satellite radio's only limit is the sky, prospective investors may want to consider a few demurrals. First, there's the plain fact that for all of satellite radio's success today, XM and Sirius are losing tons of money and burning cash. Wall Street expects XM this year to post a loss before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization of $250 million on revenue of $259 million; at Sirius, analysts see negative EBITDA of $313 million on $72 million in revenue. Both companies expect that at some point next year they will produce more cash than they consume. That's the best case -- meaning bottom-line profits are nowhere in view.

harddrivin1le

The Jazz, Blues, Acoustic and vocal oriented music sounds pretty damn good.

They probably further compress the crap because they figure that most of the kids listening to it won't notice the difference.

Stewie

When XM first came out it was advertised as "100 stations of CD quality sound" or something like that

I just went and took a quick look at their web site and I no longer see any reference to "CD quality".

Maybe they compressed it to fit more programming? Or to accomodate more users?

Either way, from what I have heard XM quality isn't that great and I'm frankly a little disappointed. Don't know if I would cancel it but disappointed nonetheless.

MikeRadio

It was always advertised as "Near CD Quality"... Not CD Quality... I found some old stuff I got from them...

And I still assess... XM doesn't sound as CRISP (expecially the highs) in my Acura as it does in my other cars and at home! Don't know why...

Some songs sound better though...

Also as far as compression, there is data compression and audio compression.. two sepaerate things (thanks to my friend for that info)

harddrivin1le

It sounds VERY crisp in my new Accord EX/V6.

DNA

I think the "CRISP" issue is separate from the compression issue. The lack of crispness, I suspect, has nothing to do with XM specifically, as your experience would indicate. In the TL, all audio is lacking in treble though DVD-A is better than other sources.

One can't separate "audio" compression from "data" compression when talking about XM (and MPEG and other compression techniques) because XM & MP3 compression takes advantage of the way our hearing works. This type of compression is very specific to audio and can't be applied to any other data. Like MP3, XM is both data and audio compression.

There is also lossless and lossy audio digital compression. Lossless audio compression reduces data bitrate by about 1.5 to 2 times and is used in DVD-A.

XM uses lossy audio data compression, and that's the issue. A lot of "data" is thrown away. A great deal of the pre-compressed sound is just not there anymore. This works because our ears can't hear a lot of the sound. For example, weak sounds are masked by louder sounds if they are close in frequency (pitch). So the audio data can be compressed by throwing away sounds that people won't notice is missing.

Lossy audio compression works amazingly well considering how much audio data is thrown away. However, it is not perfect which is why CD's, SACD's, and DVD-A's don't use it. Not everyone's listening capabilities are the same and some people are far more aware of effects of the lost audio than others. The greater that audio data is compressed the greater number of people will notice it and the more objectionable it will become.

Perhaps what you friend was referring to when he said "audio compression" was level-compression (which can be done either in analog or digital domain). Nearly all AM and FM stations use level compression. It effectively increases the signal's signal to noise ratio and increases the station's range as well as its "punch".

To a degree, level compression is a good thing in a car. I have a DVD-A of Mahler's 2nd, for example, that is so quiet part of the time that even when I crank it up all the way I can't hear it due to road noise. When it finally gets loud I get blasted out of the car. Basically, this DVD-A is unplayable in the TL for this reason.

Getting back to XM audio compression, it is important to realize that the low-bit rate that XM achieves is essential for them to be able to offer this service. Most of XM's cost is in satellite bandwidth. XM could easily offer audio that was, say, half as compressed which would sound better to those of us who are bothered by the current rate but its cost would nearly double. How many people would pay $20 a month if XM used 128 Kbps sampling rate compared to the current 64 Kbps per channel rate? XM would sound even better at 256 Kbps and almost no one could tell the difference between it and CD. Almost no one would pay $40 a month for this service either.

-David

harddrivin1le

That's the only truly informative post I've come across on here.

svtmike

I agree. That post was great, especially compared to the completely uninformative crap that harddrivin1le troll posts.

Mike

harddrivin1le

I don't count my OWN posts in the "posts I've come across" column, you :clown: