harddrivin1le

QUOTE: "But every car has brakes strong enough for the anti-lock system to hold its tires on the verge of a lockup for at least one stop. So when a vehicle's brakes are cold, the stopping distance is more dependent on the traction of the tires than the power of the brakes."

The article goes on to explain that most of the heat generated during braking is dissipated by the rotors.

The results obtained from several hard stops demonstrate the importance of large diameter, heavy rotors (which no production line stock Acura TL has). Such rotors yield much more consistent and shorter stops during repeat hard braking.

This explains how ROAD AND TRACK was able to achieve good, one or two "panic stop" results with their test Acura TL Type S, despite the fact that the overall braking system is lame due to undersized rotors that lack the mass and area to effectively dissipate heat during true performance driving.

It also explains why people who quote the results of one single stop (e.g. 60 MPH to zero) and use those results to brag about their car's braking performance have no real understanding of how brakes work.

These brakes simply blow.

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

It's like a boxing match... How many rounds will the brake rant go?

If that's the case, I'm more than confident in the braking system on my TL. As you (and C&D) state, If tires have more impact on braking that rotors when cold... considering the OEM "garbage" tires on the TL-S, those are GOOD numbers for a crappy tire and a cold braking system.

Here's an Epic example of Acura TL brake system shortcomings...


In summary, you wanna track your TL like the Thunderhill car? Take 600 lbs of creature comforts off like the race team did to htis TL, and you might win an event too...

harddrivin1le

We've been through this before. The STRIPPED DOWN TL racer in that photo weighs about the same as a new Civic Type R (~ 2,800 pounds).

As such, that TL's "stock brakes" are adequate for the task at hand. Of course, that stripped down race car is NOT ADEQUATE for street driving.

R&T's test car had the optional "summer" Bridgestone's."

Here are the rotor size specs for the TL. They are laughable. The Brembo front rotors aren't even a full 1" thick and are actually THINNER than the base TL rotors (and, hence, weigh about the same).

The rears are pathetic. They are 11.1" diameter, SOLID, and a mere 0.35" diameter.

http://www.hondanews.com/search/rele...mshaft&s=acura

SHOW ME ANY CURRENT MODEL YEAR "performance sedan" WITH BRAKE ROTORS THAT SMALL.

I can show you several lighter, far less expensive cars that use larger rotors than that!

Legend2TL

Sorta like a Tootsie Pop, the world will never know.

I did find this quote from the Edmunds full test of the 3G TL 6MT on it's braking evaluation. I believe that Edmunds typically do three consecutive 60-0 stops for their brake evaluation.

"Braking Comments: A substantial amount of ABS noise and pedal vibration was evident during maximum braking, but it's hard to argue with three stops all coming in between 115 and 116 feet. There was a slight pull to the right on the final stop, and noticeable front-end dive was evident. However, the numbers, and lack of brake fade, speak for themselves, and with these numbers we're willing to forgive and forget almost anything."

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...7/pageNumber=2

But hey, ya got love the determination, drive, and persistence of the OP

harddrivin1le

How many REPEAT , HIGH SPEED stops were involved in that test? It looks like they did 3 stops from 60 MPH...

THAT ISN'T HIGH PERFORMANCE DRIVING!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't argue with basic physics.

The rotors MUST ultimately be large in diameter and relatively heavy in order to dissipate the heat that's associated with REPEATED hard stops.

The fact that Brembo builds the front rotors is completely irrelevant.

Also, the published curb weight of that particular test car was just 3,489 pounds. That's 200 full pounds less than what my '07 TL Type S automatic weighs.

Legend2TL

Actually in racing although weight is an important factor in braking selection, the most critical factor is the top speeds from which the cars are going and the desired end braking speeds. Kinetic energy is 0.5*M*V*V, so racing a TL at those speeds put a tremendous amount of thermal load on the braking system. Doubling your velocity increases the energy 4 times so that is a primary factor in brake system design, wheither for a car, motorcycle, airplane, .....

harddrivin1le

The amount of energy that must be dissipated by the braking system is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to vehicle mass.

Produce an example of a any other current model year "performance sedan" that uses rotors this small.

Don't even bother looking because you won't find a single one.

Even a base model Subaru STi has larger rotors than a TL-S and the Subaru is significantly lighter.

Legend2TL

3 stops with no fade. Also from the article review in Edmunds

" As the six-speed TL is fitted with Brembo brakes (with four-piston calipers) up front as standard issue, we expected our TL to stop as well as it goes. During everyday driving, the brakes, although squeaky at times, felt progressive and reassuringly strong. And at the track, a trio of stopping distances (from 60 mph) of less than 116 feet confirmed our initial positive impressions of the TL's binders."

harddrivin1le

FROM 60 MPH!

Three stops from 60 MPH!

THAT IS NOT HIGH PERFORMANCE DRIVING!

IT'S A JOKE!

A new 4 cylinder Honda CRV's total rotor area and mass are greater as my TLType S's, even though my TL is actually heavier and a lot faster!

http://automobiles.honda.com/cr-v/specifications.aspx

Legend2TL

Yeah so dropping 600lb on a 3500lb vehicle is only 18% reduction in kinetic energy, doubling your initial velocity for braking does a 300% increase in braking energy. That's very small compared to doing the brake loading budgets for a race vehicle. That's when you select the pads and rotors to get the optimum brake temperature for race speeds. Again on a track with probably double the average speed most of us travel at, the stock brakes performed pretty well for that particular class the TL was racing in.

harddrivin1le

Why are you in denial?

SHOW ME ANOTHER, CURRENT MODEL YEAR "PERFORMANCE CAR" WITH ROTORS AS SMALL AS THE TL - TYPE S's.

You entire argument is ridiculous.

A lowly, 4 cylinder, 3,500 pound CRV has rotors that are LARGER than the rotors on my Acura TL Type S, even though the Acura is HEAVIER and a lot FASTER!

http://automobiles.honda.com/cr-v/specifications.aspx

And for the record, the TL RACER in question is a whopping EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY POUNDS HEAVIER than my TL-S automatic! Put another way, my TL is 32% heavier!

Legend2TL

What's actually a joke is that Edmunds had ~12' longer stopping distances on the 2009 TSX with it's larger brake rotors front and rear than the 2004 TL. Also the TSX was lighter than the TL. They also reported brake fade and smoking of the brakes. Check it out for yourself.

TL 2004
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...7/pageNumber=2
A substantial amount of ABS noise and pedal vibration was evident during maximum braking, but it's hard to argue with three stops all coming in between 115 and 116 feet. There was a slight pull to the right on the final stop, and noticeable front-end dive was evident. However, the numbers, and lack of brake fade, speak for themselves, and with these numbers we're willing to forgive and forget almost anything.


TSX 2009
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...0/pageNumber=4

Braking Comments: This is not acceptable braking performance for a car in this class at this price point, and the TSX's 127-foot 60-mph-to-0 stopping distance (achieved on the first run) doesn't tell the whole story. There was considerable fade by the second braking run, and by the third run, the brakes were smoking. We also noticed massive fade when slowing after acceleration runs, which indicates this brake system's lack of thermal capacity. We suspect the brakes on this TSX test car had never been heat-cycled (given that the car had only 850 miles on its odometer), but even so, we expected much better performance in this test.

Legend2TL

Actually my argument is based on measured results from a car review media outlet (Edmunds) that is highly respected by the auto industry and other media sources. So I'm sticking with documented facts.

But again you are very persistent

harddrivin1le

A 4 cylinder TSX is a "performance sedan?"

It's yet another example of an under-braked, under-tired, over-marketed ACURA.

harddrivin1le

Edmund's 3 stops from 60 MPH have NOTHING TO DO with high performance driving, which you have clearly never done.

And comparing braking results that were obtained with different drivers under different conditions on different days is stupid due to the large number of uncontrolled variables involved.

Have you ever driven a REAL high performance car that has REAL brakes?

Here is the weight of that TL racer: 2,797 pounds:

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=309350

Here is the weight of my PIG: 3,674 pounds.

http://www.hondanews.com/search/rele...mshaft&s=acura

Do the math.

Better yet, I'll do it for you:

3,674 - 2,797 = 877 pounds

877/2,797 X 100 = 31.35%

My PIG is 31.35% heavier than that RACER. Any comparison in braking performance is therefore silly.

This car's brakes are simply lame - but only to those have driven REAL performance cars equipped with REAL brakes.

My PIG weighs about the same as a new BMW 5 series. As such, it should have the same size rotors. Instead, it has rotors that are smaller than a new CRV's.

harddrivin1le

http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/j...s.do?loc=en-us

The new Mitsu Evo uses THE SAME FRONT CALIPERS as an Acura TL Type S, makes about the same power (291 HP vs. 286 certified HP) and weighs just 200 pounds less than the Type S (in 6 speed form).

Note the size of the rotors on that Evo.

Also note that all four rotors are vented.


Front Brake Type: Ventilated disc with 4-piston caliper
Front Brake Diameter (in/m): 13.8 / 350

Rear Brake Type: Ventilated disc with 2-piston caliper
Rear Brake Diameter (in/m): 13.0 / 330

THOSE ARE REAL BRAKES!

But I'll bet Edmunds would record 60 - 0 MPH distances that are similar to what they recorded for that 2004 TL.

Go drive a new Evo and see how "similar" those brakes are a new TL's.

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

This sums it up best...

harddriven's funademental, yet moot, point is:
Braking ability is purely a measure of rotor diameter, therefore the TL is underbraked when you compare rotor sizes to other ligther cars out there.

But the fact legend made above refutes all that. The lighter 2009 TSX with bigger rotors than the 2004 TL had longer stopping distances than the TL

As I tell the wife, there's more to lovin than the "size"...

That's end of arguement to me. Braking is not all about rotor size, although it is a key factor.

The thunderhill pic is more than picture to me. Sure, the car is 600 lbs lighter. Let's be clear, harddriven drives a sissy auto, and it's a bit heavier, which is where he gets the "whopping 850" lbs.

Anyway... Heatcycle the CR-V's big ass rotors like that in the picture... warp city.
The TL's brakes are more than sufficient any way you slice it.

EVO?
Now we're comparing AWD vehicles? AWD vehicles need big rear brakes... TL won't be AWD until next year...

harddrivin1le

No, that doesn't "sum it up."

The 2004 TL 6 speed had LARGER front rotors than the new TSX (12.2" vs. 11.8") and the same size rear rotors. It also had wider wheels and larger, stickier tires.

In other words, you're just plain WRONG.

Braking performance in HIGH PERFORMANCE applications (not Edmund's) is dictated primarily by rotor diameter AND rotor mass, since the rotors are ultimately what dissipates the braking car's kinetic energy (in the form of heat).

The TL-S's rear brake rotors (and calipers) are absolutely IDENTICAL to those used on the new, 4 cylinder Honda Accord! Would you consider that "high performance?"

The TL-S's front rotors are a mere 0.98" thick (compared to 1.30" for a new Z51 Corvette, for example), have NO real high performance features (e.g. no aluminum centers and no curved vanes) and are very modest in diameter by modern, high performance, 3,600 pound car standards.

Your claims that the CRV's rotors are superior to those used on the TL-S are utterly baseless.

People who don't understand brakes latch onto the Brembo name and automatically ASSume that the car really stops as a result.

Acura, for all their faults, knew that and chose to spend their money on MARKETING instead of truly effective, cost efficient brakes (e.g. 2 piston front sliding aluminum calipers with 13"F and 12" rear rotors, vented all around). Such a system would have cost LESS than the Brembo crap and would have yielded a big improvment in TRUE high performance driving. But those wouldn't have been Brembos, so sales might have suffered.

Acura does not build a single car that I would classify as a TRUE performance sedan. Their products are all about gizmos, bells, whistles, marketing and, sadly, sketchy customer support.

I will personally never buy another one.

01tl4tl

The 2005 TL- modded with Turbo and basic safety equipment--crewed by the LA engineer design team that made the gen3 TL,
1st in its class and 3rd overall iirc at the '05 25 hours of Thuderhill- my hometrack after Infineon~
Everyone laughed at the front wheel drive car in an endurance race- against vipers and mustangs and vettes
The TL was not on stock brakes - most of the teams there also ran RacingBrake 2 piece rotors and et900 race pads.

I have spent many hours at the edge of the track watching car after car come past with blazing hot rotors- sometimes one will come into pit lane for a splash of water on the flames from the pads- and go right back out!

Nascar uses big heavy rotors- they glow and last 1 race if lucky. Le'Mans cars have massive brakes- and they glow too~ friction creates heat

Yes the stock ~just about anything~ is underbraked- and easily upgraded for track fanatics

If you want to drive your TL in a sprited manner, get upgraded rotors and pads, and gen2 can run legend 2 piston calipers--- and take another 30 feet off the stopping distance!

At the track and real world you get a chance for the brakes to cool for a few seconds between uses- and rarely are you doing full stops with them- its all about killing 40-80 mph from 100+ in a hurry, and do it again in 1000 feet, repeat 15 times in every 3 mile long, under 2.5 minute lap~

Bearcat94

Show one documented and published test demonstrating that the TL-S (or MT TL) demonstrates poor braking in "performance drving" conditions compared to a similar car in a similar market segment.

IOW - prove it in the real world, not in brake dynamics theory.

Can't do it, can ya?

BUT *I* can point to tests where the TL-S runs lap times similar (or faster) than the G35 and IS3xx and/or reviews, from the track with professional drivers, who laud the driving characteristics of the TL-S.

harddrivin1le

I'm still LMAO at your comparison of the '04 TL to the (PATHETIC) TSX.

That '04 TL had wider rubber (235/45 vs. 225/50), stickier rubber (Potenza summers vs. that all season Michelin garbage) and wider wheels (8" vs. 7.5").

The TL was a mere 60 pounds heavier than the new TSX.

SO OF COURSE THE TL STOPPED BETTER!

Put the same rubber on a new TSX and it would stop every bit as well - without the fancy Brembos.

Of course, a TSX is hardly a PERFORMANCE CAR.

A new M3, for example, is. Go drive one. That uses no name, single piston sliding front calipers, yet those brakes will put you through the windshield @ 140 MPH if you're not wearing a belt and stomp on them.

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

How about that... I'm wrong all the time. I guess I read too much inot Legends statement without checking facts

Certainly doesn't make you RIGHT... that's for sure.

Well...
Frankly, I never consider the TL a high performance car, I considered it a glorified Accord. Not sure who here consideres it more than that that for $32K. It's a nice car with some performance and luxury features... and I've modded a few things to bring more of that out.

The fact the TL now shares the motor (and brakes) with the new Accord does say a lot to reaffirm my belief above.

Ya know, for $600, I rectified your beef with a set of Racingbrake rotors and pads...



2 piece design, curved vanes, aluminum hats, slotted design... everyhting YOU said a performance rotor required above... I couldn't be happier. 3500 lbs, they don't throw me through the windshield, but I have a lot of confidence in there now. I haven't pushed it hard enough to feel the real performance affects. My glorified Accord is a weekend cruiser, not a track car... who tracks a TL for competitve times?

Perhaps you should consider some upgrades and quit bitching? If not perhaps you should consider buying a performance car?

harddrivin1le

Show me one article that says pink, unicycle riding cats don't live below the surface of the moon.

The fact that you can't doesn't prove they don't.

I have never seen a magazine article that included a TL Type S in multiple hot laps in the hands of a skilled driver.

The brakes would go to hell rapidly, since those dinky little rotors aren't physically capable of dissipating the kind of kinetic energy that would be associated with that application.

Bearcat94

IOW - you have no test data to support your arguement. Brilliant.

harddrivin1le

Yep, every time.

Just like the time you insisted that "pre-loading" springs (to raise or lower the car) increases the spring's CONSTANT, which is CONSTANT by definition (e.g. 600 pounds/inch).

Your rotors are still way too small and way to light for track use in the hands of a skilled driver.

If you're happy with them then fine. They are probably pretty decent for a 3,500 pound car, but why did you spend all that money if the stock brakes are so great?

I parked my car next to a new, lowly TAURUS a couple of weeks ago and couldn't believe how LAME my super duper TL TYPE S rotors looked compared to those. That Taurus uses thick, 12.6" Front rotors and big, 13" rear rotors. My brakes looked pathetic in comparison.

I'm sure R&T recorded 60 MPH to 0 stopping distances that weren't as good as the TL-S. BUT, put comparable tires on that Taurus and/or step on those brakes at real speed and the differences would be quite huge.

Bearcat94

BTW kennedy - which pads did you get? And did you do front only or rears also?

We upgraded the 2G with RB Slotted (1-Peice) fronts and StopTech Slotted OE replacement rears. Used the ET500 pads. Great, great stuff.

Got SS barkes lines too and all for about $300 less than what the dealer would've charged.

ggesq

iTrader: (1)

I don't get why you guys keep feeding this troll.

harddrivin1le

I have SCIENCE...and a mechanical engineering degree.

Hence, I know that rotors must ultimately be large in diameter and heavy in order to effectively dissipate the heat that's associated with true high performance driving.

Try reading the article I referenced in this thread's title and perhaps you will grasp that fact.

Or don't read it and remain in the dark.

Legend2TL

Cause we have nothing better to do

Ahh it's sorta amusing in a strange convoluted way

Legend2TL

Wow, not you're scaring us with talk like that

WRXtranceformed

Jesus man, I just ran through the other 4 page long thread you posted up about braking in which you were proved wrong over and over, and now you make another thread about it? What is with you and the braking? I had every brake component on my old STi upgraded aside from the more than adequate front and rear calipers and my TL-S brakes have been just as good for the type of driving I do on a daily basis.

What the hell kind of driving do you do that you're jamming on the brakes over and over again? Are you racing? If so, you jumped into your purchase way too fast and picked the completely wrong *stock* platform for racing.

With that said, there are plenty of examples out there of the TL-S beating its competitors around the track. Largely due to it pulling better times on the skid pad, but you simply cannot do this without better than adequate brakes.

Legend2TL

That does not explain the fade and smoking, that has very little to do with the tires. It deals with the brake pad choice and thermal capacity of the rotors. None the less, the brake system of the TL still outperforms the TSX in fade, distance, and feel.

WRXtranceformed

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

My argument was that preloading was an accepted method to share a spring of a said constant across numerous platforms, which is a widely accepted practice... Even in your percieved "superior" product lines. I know that, you know that, you're just hearing yourself talk now. My Tein SS's are doing great BTW, I'm still satisfied with mine...

Your opinion... Mike seems to be doing quite OK with his:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...ighlight=track



Great, glad to hear you're satisfied with my satisfaction.
Truth told, I needed new brakes... pushing 40K miles now. It's about $250 MORE to upgrade to RBs from stock all around...Gotta do it, why not get a better product.
Thanks for the financial concern, I can afford it.

Ugh, no comment. Is this about looks or performance? Personally, I can't see a difference in .8in diameter rotor... and neither can Mitsu, considering your statement above says they use the exact same caliper as the TL, just a .in wider rotor...
Big 13 rears on FWD car? That's good engineering... maybe taurus's are rwd. I don't care enough to look it up.

I'm sure you're sure of that.

WRXtranceformed

2 seconds faster around Willow Springs. Wow, that TL-S must have had some really shitty brakes.

Kennedy

iTrader: (2)

All around, here's the rears:


2 piece up front, single piece solid rears... ET 500's, braided lines... $950 or so.

Fresh bleed and off you go.

Bearcat94

SCIENCE says theory must be verified by experimental evidence. You offer only evidence of SIZE, but not performance. This is intellectually dishonest; the scientific equivalent of a "bait-and-switch".

Further you insist on comparing 2004 industry/market norms to 2009 industry/market norms. Again, intellectually dishonest. When designed and launched, how did the TL MT brakes compare to similar cars in similar market segments?

In fact, there is much PERFORMANCE evidence (previously posted elsewhere) that your theory is incomplete (not wrong, btw, just not the whole story).

It's obvious that you bought the wrong car for the wrong reasons. I'm really, really sorry that you were too naive to understand the difference between marketing, the real world and personal utility. Hopefully you've learned a valuable life lesson and will be more careful with your next automobile purchase.

harddrivin1le

ROTOR SIZE ultimately = braking PERFORMANCE due to the basic laws of thermodynamics and heat transfer, which you clearly no nothing about.

That's why you won't find 12.2" F and 11.1 rear (solid, no less, with single piston calipers) on new BMW M5s, Porsche 911s and many other REAL performance cars that cost much less.

I have driven MANY real performance cars with real brakes. Anyone who thinks an Acura TL Type S's brakes qualify as real "high performance" brakes by current standards is either delusional, in brand specific denial, or both.

You can read the new C&D article (and many, many others on brakes, since you clearly need the education) and see how crucial rotor dia. and mass are in ultimately determining braking performance.

harddrivin1le

You "can't see a difference in .8" diameter?"

LOL

Area (and mass, for any given thickness) = PI * RADIUS SQUARED.

A seemingly small difference in rotor diameter will therefore yield an exponentially (2nd order) increase in rotor area.

Example:

Pi * (12.2/2)^2 = 117 square inches

Pi * (13/2)^2 = 133 square inches

133 - 117 = 16

16/117 * 100 = 13.7% increase in rotor area (and mass, for the same thickness).

Now increase the thickness to something that resembles a real high performance rotor (1.20" vs. the standard, Mickey Mouse .98") and you'll get a 20% gain in thickness and mass.

Total rotor mass of the 13" rotor with a 1.2" thickness would therefore be 33.7% greater than the OEM rotor. That's essentially on-third more mass, which is huge.

The 13" rotor also has a braking torque arm that's .40" inches longer (a 6.6% increase) which is directly proportional to stopping power at any given wheel speed.

The TOTAL difference between a REAL 13" rotor and a cheesy 12.2" rotor can therefore be VERY significant - even when all other things are the same.

The differences between a 12" rear and that dinky OEM joke would be even more profound.

Acura specifies 12.6" F rotors and 12.2 R rotors on their RL. Why wouldn't they have used the super duper TL rotor blanks (with different hole patterns) if they're so fanastic and it .8" isn't relevant??

juruki

iTrader: (2)

You are saying the same crap you said on your last thread about brakes. The same arguments... shut up already