I just read that the A-spec cut down on the 0-60 time on the TL? I thought it was basically a cosmetic kit with mild handling gains. The magazine I read stated the kit shaved a half second off the time! The only thing that came to mind was maybe the lack of "squat" and just being more level helped out, but I'm not sure. I don't think I would ever get the kit because I don't like the tricked out look.

Also, how much are the a-spec rims?? They are gorgeous!

Lastly, has anyone actually had the opportunity to experience both the standard 17" rims and the 18" in depth, other than just a test drive. Curious how much ride comfort was affected. On my four test drives, the most remarkeable thing was the perfect balance Acura achieved with the suspension. It was tight and comfortable!

Sorry for the hodge podge of thoughts and questions, thanks in advance.

 

there is no way the a-spec tl with ADDED body weight such as a body kit and lip spoiler can improve 0-60
the only way it can improve is like you said "squat" but by half a second ...i dont think so

i had the 17s on before i changed to the a-specs. ive noticed little to no difference in acceleration and the ride quality was acutally better (prob cause of the tires Pirelli Pzeros)

 

the times with and A-Spec kit is better by like .1 or .2 seconds in the 1/4 mile thats what i read in i think Car & Driver not sure but it is better ever little bit of time improvement helps

 

No way.

.1 can be a difference in the weather, individual car, or whether or not the drive got laid at breakfast. Consider it a wash. I still love A-Spec, but I won't fool myself into thinking it improves acceleration.

 

alot of it has to do with the tires. the stock tires on the 17 are not that great.(even the new michelin tires). when you purchase the a-spec kit the tires are suppose to be high performance summer tires and will get better traction. also since the suspension is mildly stiffer the little bit of reduced squat will help to accelerate the car. especially in a fwd configuration. 1/2 second is stretching it a bit but a couple of tenths is within reason.

 

j/k

 

Road&Track had the non-aspec 6-spd TL at 14.4 @ 99 and had the A-spec 6MT Tl at 14.0 @98...

The tires, the smaller tire wall size -- allows for improved launches... the rear squat is reduced b/c the car is lowered 1/2-1" however the rear springs are actually 30% softer in the A-spec suspension (don't believe me, look it up yourself). THe front suspension is actually tighter.

These are most likely the reasons for the improved times, but I agree that the tire rubber on the Yoko's are the main reason.

 

It all has to do with the tires. I had a big arguement with a buddy over this.

 

Tires, and conditions.

You guys get it, but alot of people out there don't believe tires have alot to do with it.

The other is conditions. I mean, forget A-spec vs non A-spec. Take the SAME TL A-spec or not, same driver, and run it twice, and chances are you won't get exactly the same time. Run it 10 times and chances are you won't get exactly the same time.

the gains are too small to tell any difference at all, although the a-spec suspension makes you "feel" faster I guess

 

The suspension could reduce squat yes...as there is less weight transfer for the car to "pitch" into the rear tires, as you know the weight should be in the front of the car where as its front wheel drive.

the 18" aspec tires may actuall be heavier and there may be more weight near the outside of the wheel resulting in making it more difficult to turn the wheels.

the parts about the wheels above are correct, i would guess it's a wash as well
but it looks so much better!!!! (that's really why many get that aspec package)

 

The 18's also greatly improved my cornering ... I went from stock TL to 18" rims only (no A-spec suspension yet) and I noticed a nice improvement in handling... Launches are better b/c of reduced wheel spin and I have yet to experience any wheel hop.

 

less wheel hop on the 18's huh? that's good to know cause the 17's now give me a good amount if i let launch too hard. i figure it was the crappy tires i have but i'll have to get a set of 18's and see.

 

Same ride quality improvement experience going from EL-42's to Pirelli P-Zero Nero 18's here. My traction was much improved too. I can definitely see how this would translate to improved 0-60 times.

 

I think that's backwards. The front springs are 7 percent softer and the rears are 20 percent stiffer. R&T published that, and I think it was in the press kit.

 

Do your research buddy and quit reading those no car specs in there.

 

I believe this may be close to your findings.

What i see on this site is a diff of .3 sec from the 6mt and A-Spec. I am no expert nor do I claim to know anything about performance so with that said, please excuse my ignorance, does this seem possible? .3 is a good amount of time, I would think.

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercou...0-60times.html

 

Quick Question to anyone. (this may be the wrong forum for this question)

How can a 330i w/ sport package (235hp/222ftp) @ 3370 pounds be enough of an upgrade to perform the same as our TL A-Spec (270hp/238ftp) @ 3543 pounds? Both hit 0-60 in 5.6 and 1/4 times are 14.3 @ 97 according to Car and Driver.

Granted, the TL does it with close to $10k extra cash in your pocket for as close as BMW can come in terms of options. But from just the performance standpoint.. does RWD and the less than 200 weight diff give the 330i enough of an edge where the 35 less horsies and 16 less ft. pounds don't hurt it? Well.. not "does" because it is obvious from the tests that it does.. but being the novice that I am.. I just don't understand how it can, I guess. Can anyone shed some light for me or point me to some link that can assist me?

Thanks,

Edit: Just to give my opinion - The 330i fully loaded still can't hold a feather to the new Tl. I think BMW's are nice and all, but the price premium and lack of styling in the interior just will never pull me over to BMW. RWD to me is only good for screwing around doing fish-tails when i am bored. But that was 10 years ago. I grew up.

 

Thanks for the correction... ! I knew I was close

 

One comparison test was in Motor Trend. (both were 6MT) Here are the numbers:

2004------------------------- Acura TL------------------- TL A- SPEC
0-60 mph, sec--------------- 6.0-----------------------------5.7
1/4 mile----------------------14.44 @ 98.17--------------14.25 @ 97.81
Braking, 60-0,f t-------------141-----------------------------119
Slalom, mph------------------62.5---------------------------66.1
Skidpad, g--------------------0.77--------------------------0.83

Here is the link:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...ner/index.html

IMO: It may be cognitive disssonance (related to the $5K cost).....but the difference in performance is noticible and it seems measurable.

 

It is all in the HP and Torque curve, and tranny setup (ratios etc.). For how long (rpm's) can a car put down a particular amount of torque to the ground is what determines it's acceleration.

 

It is not clear what tires were used in the stock TL, the EL 42's or the Potenzas. That alone would explain such a big difference.

 

6speedv6: So if all things being equal and the 6mt and the a-spec 6mt had the same tires, you believe that they would run close to the same times?

If that is the case, then is it fair to say that the tires are the performance boost and that the suspension really has none in terms of straight line performance? (of course I understand the advantages the suspension will give you in over-all ride)

Also, when you purchase just the a-spec rims, do they not come with the same tires as the a-spec package? I thought they did.

 

They should be very close.
A very slight advantage in the launch.
They should.

 

As you grow up more and more you will end up in a Corolla. I'd rather go from TL to 5-seies to CL/S-class. Like it or not CL600 as well as LS430 are RWD cars.

 

first off 200 pounds is a considerable amount of weight difference when performance comes into play. the BMW 's engine's torque is just a little shy of the TL's and is available throughout the RPM range. honda engines are more known for their top end so the power is really in the righ rpm range. that aside when comparing the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times the bmw can launch a bit harder because it is rwd. when you dump the clutch on the TL at too high an rpm you will get wheel spin/hop. this is a dis-advantage, you cannot apply all your power to the ground immediately because it does not have the traction. on a rwd car when you dump the clutch the natural tendancy is for the weight to shift to the rear therefore adding more traction to the rear wheels and allowing you to dump more power to it. (as the car is accelerating foward there is more weight being shifted to the rear). if the TL was in rwd configuration it would probably be a little faster than the 330. but like i said 200 pounds is a big difference.

 

As yourself, I live in the northern-midwest region so in snow, rwd does me no good. True, if I lived in Cali or Texas I would for sure would be into the rwd monsters on the road but my natural progression from here is AWD and the new RL. As for the other cars mentioned, I am not into the interior styling of any of those cars. I am either not old enough to appreciate the bland look and feel or just to modern and techy. Until they do a complete overhaul of their interiors as the Acura did for the new TL's, i would not even consider them. However, those cars are definitely quality vehicles and I take nothing from them but Acura definitely meets my needs for interior better than any other cars I have driven.

Also, seeing that my father works for Honda/Acura I will definitely stay with Acura for as long as he is able to get me the killer deals.

 

CaBall88: Thanks for the info. I didn't think 200 pound was enough to really make that big of a difference. Damn.. in that case, i need to just lose some weight and the A-Spec will do 5.5!! jk.. Anyway, thatnks again for the clarification and quick lesson.

 

Great post.

 

First of all, a shorter sidewall or what is referred to as "low profile" tires DO NOT help in the 1/4 mile, they hurt. The sidewall does not flex and the result is a stiffer overall tire that does not absorb the force of driveline as well as a tire with a larger sidewall.

If anyone has ever been to the dragstrip you'll know that all of the high hp cars have tires that have HUGE sidewalls that actually "wrinkle" when they launch.

I would take magazine times with a LARGE grain of salt. If they tested the ASpec IMMEDIATELY after the base car, then I would believe the improvement. I would guess the ASPEC tires should help 0-60 times, especially if they are a nice soft tread. Without having the tests performed at the same time however, there are too many variables at play. Weather, wind, track condition, driver skill all make a huge difference when it comes down to .10's of a second in the 1/4 mile.

What you 3rd gen guys need to do is GET MORE TRACK TIMES. I cant believe that there is such a lack of real life 1/4 times from people on here, especially you 6 speed guys.

 

To jtkz13;

You may have missed something in your post about tire sidewalls (aspect ratios). A shorter (lower) aspect ratio means a smaller tire in diameter assuming there is no change to the wheel size. So if you were going from a 235/45-17 to a 245/35-17, your tire would be quite a bit shorter. This has the exact same affect as changing your final drive to a lower gear which results in improved torque multiplication and therefore, quicker times in the quarter mile.

Incidently, the large, flexible sidewalls you see on serious drag machines serve several purposes. The sidewall flex helps to offset the tremendous bite of the tire so that the drivetrain will not self-destruct. The flex also allows the tire to continue to maintain its bite with on the asphalt for maximum traction. And finally, the flexing sidewall aids in traction under hard weight transfer.

 

I thought i was the only one who used cognitive dissonance ; - although perhaps placebo effect is more appropriate in this context? I also have found (and having been a tester at one point) that my times were often affected by my perception of the car (its color, rep, etc.). In a "hot shoe" car compared to a more languid sibling, I was more "tuned in" and my reaction times (60 feet times, for example) were sharper. No doubt the A=spec is a better handler.

there is also the possibility of a ringer, or a particularly stout car. 1-3% is not at all unreasonable variation between exactly the same cars. That goes for engine, trannmy, even the quality of the alignment.

We used to check particularly with the latter - alignment. Mfr test loaners often showed up with some positive rear toe-in, which made for amazingly sharp turn-in, but which would result in vastly reduced tire service life. The early NSX's were notorious for chewing up their Yoko's at 7k or less - some nitwits threatened a lawsuit (echoes here now and then), and Honda re-mapped the specs in later production cars. It went to 17's partially to compensate. (Honda is famous for relatively small rubber: The NSX's had 16's at the outset, and the S2000, which came 10 years later, came with 16's as well. The 2004 S2000 has 17's).

It must be the tires and the launch, because all things being equal, 18's will reduce acceleration and increase braking distance.

 

The ASPEC tires have an overall diameter of 25.3", and the ASPEC tires have an overall diameter of 25.4", so there really is no difference at all in terms of gearing for the tires.

Someone who has upgraded to ASPEC wheels/tires needs to go to the track with both sets of wheels and see if the improved traction can ovecome the extra weight & rolling resistance of the 18's.

 

these numbers also suggest that cars improved performance was all in the launch.... it was .3 seconds ahead at 60 mph but only .19 when they hit the lights.... the stocker was making up ground. either through weight or drag (or the car itself just wasnt as powerful) the aspec car wasnt putting down as much power. this also shows in the cars trap speeds as the stocker was .36 mph faster thru the lights. i personally like comparing the trap times as they show more of the cars power then driver skill (lost time on the launch)

seeing as there are no geometry changes (or major spring rate changes) i belive 90% of the differeance in the 0-60 time would be with the tires. the suspension would make a little difference but not as much as the tires alone.... any tls out there with different tires and quarter mile times?

also look at the difference in the braking deparment the aspec car stopped 22 feet sooner then the stock tl. if it was an auto id say the different pads helped, but the 6speeds have no brake upgrades in the aspec kit. also in braking, fwd, rwd, awd wont have an effect on traction. during braking all the weight is on the stopping tires. (weight transfer can still play a role in this area) but from the numbers it would seem there is a large difference in traction here. you can only stop as fast as the the tires would allow and the aspec has a distinct advantage

 

yes a-spec has better times and u get a good launch with improced suspension.

thats what guy above me said

 

im saying the suspension may not have improved the launch at all and if so not by much.... im saying that the tires alone may have caused the difference in the times

 

well i'm saying suspension did help!

 

I believe the quicker time for the A spec is due to the lightweight 18" rims. Alot of HP loss is due to wheel mass and the associated inertia.

Just got my SSM TL 6MT last week, AEM CAI gets installed Tuesday , Body kit on Thurs. I think after that I will white out the 4,5 and 6 on my shifter knob, I see no need for those gears when 3rd gear redlines at 93MPH!