Good brake article in August '08 C&D
06-24-2008, 07:56 PM
#41
B16 Swapped TL
HardDriving1LE....... I see your point.... but why continue to argue?
Ultimately The bigger the rotor, the better the heat dissipation, and the less brake fade, and more consistent braking.......that is just comparing same sized rotors. Roger.... got that. But at some point there will be diminished returns (assuming pads and chompers are the same) because there will still be the same amount of braking surface, and only soo much heat is going to be generated by that.... perhaps the TL-S is near that point (just a thought).
You are right in competitive driving these brakes are lacking in back to back to back to back high speed stopping... but for the job they were designed for I think they are more than adequate.
Just guessing from the 1LE in your SN you must be a competitive road course fan
I almost made the 1LE plunge a few years back, but I would never use the car for what it was designed and instead went for the SS mullet sled.
Last parting comment.... I don't think you will change many opinions... too much loyalty to admit that perhaps the TL could benefit from an upgrade, and comparatively speaking it is behind in that depart when compared to it's competitors.
Ultimately The bigger the rotor, the better the heat dissipation, and the less brake fade, and more consistent braking.......that is just comparing same sized rotors. Roger.... got that. But at some point there will be diminished returns (assuming pads and chompers are the same) because there will still be the same amount of braking surface, and only soo much heat is going to be generated by that.... perhaps the TL-S is near that point (just a thought).
You are right in competitive driving these brakes are lacking in back to back to back to back high speed stopping... but for the job they were designed for I think they are more than adequate.
Just guessing from the 1LE in your SN you must be a competitive road course fan
I almost made the 1LE plunge a few years back, but I would never use the car for what it was designed and instead went for the SS mullet sled. Last parting comment.... I don't think you will change many opinions... too much loyalty to admit that perhaps the TL could benefit from an upgrade, and comparatively speaking it is behind in that depart when compared to it's competitors.
06-24-2008, 07:58 PM
#42
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Show the test data that coorelates the two (size and performance) in this market segment.
Simple. Supoort the theory with experimental data.
This is how SCIENCE works: You have the theory, the onus is on you (or your supporters) to provide the experimental evidence that proves the theory.
Feel free to use this approximation of a rough experimental design:
Brake performance data coorelated to brake size from the same track, same driver, same conditions only changing the rotor size used.
Simple. Supoort the theory with experimental data.
This is how SCIENCE works: You have the theory, the onus is on you (or your supporters) to provide the experimental evidence that proves the theory.
Feel free to use this approximation of a rough experimental design:
Brake performance data coorelated to brake size from the same track, same driver, same conditions only changing the rotor size used.
06-24-2008, 08:17 PM
#43
Originally Posted by 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??
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??
Lovely... Nevermind any calculation of swept area, materials selections, or rotor weight. Your calculation is flawed in that those percentages are based on total plate area, not swept area... Have you measured swept area of the Taurus rotor vs the TL's? Nope. A larger rotor with a larger hub center (less swept) will not gain anything more than the braking torque arm increase, which is trivial.
No matter though.
My statemnt was purely based on:
Originally Posted by hardriven1le
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.
You're an engineer... Why do you insist on big brakes for the rear? FWD, heavy weight bias to the front... why do you need big rears...? big strong rears could affect the balanced brake bias which could completely affect braking handling... That would be fun.
RL brakes are bigger for obvious reasons, AWD and HEAVY F'ing car... nuff said there.
Ever consider the weight factor of bigger, heavier honking rotors? Think maybe the Acura design team may have compromised a bit of rotor size to reduce unsprung weight, rotating mass, etc... Nevermind the ability to fit more modest 17" wheels over them? Perhaps ther's more to engineering an economical car than specifying the largest rotor possible?
And why do you keep comparing the M3 here? $70K plus Nurburgring borne track heritage pinnacle of German development to the $32K Acura family truckster... The chosen 1/2 ass luxury sport inspired, RELIABLE commuter vehicle of yuppies everywhere... to which the brakes are more than adequete, actually very good for.
Again, who has to educate YOU that YOU didn't buy the M3 you so woefully covet?
06-24-2008, 08:17 PM
#44
B16 Swapped TL
I think the key there to your challenge Bearcat is the only variable that changes is size of rotor. At some point there will be diminished returns if the only thing that increases is rotor size.... it may very well be that on the TL that particularly point is exactly where we are equipped.
I think generically speaking though, most folks would agree that Larger is better.....with the understanding that is the Big hand little map summary.
I think generically speaking though, most folks would agree that Larger is better.....with the understanding that is the Big hand little map summary.
06-24-2008, 08:25 PM
#45
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Originally Posted by SporkLover
I think the key there to your challenge Bearcat is the only variable that changes is size of rotor. ....
That is a paraphrase of what 1LE demanded to prove xx-to-0 stopping distances were meaningful of anything, including 1-time E-Stop distances.
I figure if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.
06-24-2008, 08:54 PM
#46
AZ Community Team
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
06-24-2008, 09:05 PM
#47
AZ Community Team
Originally Posted by Kennedy
How about that... I'm wrong all the time. I guess I read too much inot Legends statement without checking facts
...
...
I did notice it before others posted but hey at least the OP is fact checking, just not his own.
06-25-2008, 05:55 AM
#48
AZ Community Team
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Oh and the M3 does not have no-name brakes, if you knew something about BMW's you would know they use ATE and Teves for their brake system components.
06-25-2008, 02:47 PM
#49
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
Stickier tires would only make worst a brake fade issue in brakes, since they would decrease the amount of distance/time the thermal energy is disappated. I thought about it overnight.
Fade doesn't become an issue in modern cars until repeat hard stops from elevated speeds are executed, which you would understand if you bothered to read the new CAR AND DRIVER article I referenced at the top of this thread.
KE = 1/2 MASS X VELOCITY SQUARED. Thus, a vehicle traveling @ 90 MPH has 2.25 times the Kinetic Energy of the same vehicle traveling @ 60 MPH, even though the difference in speed is just .50 (50%). The demands that are placed on the brakes therefore rise by the same factor, since the brakes (rotors) must dissipate that energy.
You clearly have no understanding of brakes, fade, basic engineering principals or thermodynamics. That's not intended as an insult; it's just simple fact.
Because you don't understand the engineering aspects of this, here is all you need to know:
REAL performance cars (e.g. Porsche, BMW, MB, Corvettes, etc.) all use LARGE DIAMETER, THICK and HEAVY (lots of mass) rotors. Go check out the rotors on a new 2008 BMW M3 (about the same weight as a TL Type S) or, for that matter, a 335i. The rotors on my Acura TL Type S look positively pathetic in comparison.
Once you've done that, ask yourself who has the better high performance braking solution:
a) Acura TL (a glorified Accord)
b) BMW...and MB, Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, Aston Martin, etc., etc.
06-25-2008, 03:10 PM
#50
AZ Community Team
The TSX exhibited significant fade in the 2nd stop and smoke from the brakes by the 3rd from 60-0.
Most of folks on this thread truely understand the physics and operation of brakes, your statement of it being otherwise is your opinion but certainly not a fact.
What is a fact is that the stopping distance of a 335i coupe and a 3G TL 6MT with similar tires (Bridgestone RE030 and RE050) is almost the same (114 vs 116 ft) from 60-0. The BMW had better performance from the reviewer's feel and modulation point of view. Also both ehibited similar lack of fade, not true for the TSX. I would agree the TSX brakes are not worthy but the vast majority of the automotive press find the brakes on the 3G TL to be quite worthy.
335i
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...9/pageNumber=5
Actually real performance cars being F1 have very light brakes (1Kg per rotor) that happen to work best when very hot. Read and learn some.
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/2
Most of folks on this thread truely understand the physics and operation of brakes, your statement of it being otherwise is your opinion but certainly not a fact.
What is a fact is that the stopping distance of a 335i coupe and a 3G TL 6MT with similar tires (Bridgestone RE030 and RE050) is almost the same (114 vs 116 ft) from 60-0. The BMW had better performance from the reviewer's feel and modulation point of view. Also both ehibited similar lack of fade, not true for the TSX. I would agree the TSX brakes are not worthy but the vast majority of the automotive press find the brakes on the 3G TL to be quite worthy.
335i
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...9/pageNumber=5
Actually real performance cars being F1 have very light brakes (1Kg per rotor) that happen to work best when very hot. Read and learn some.
http://www.f1technical.net/articles/2
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
No modern car exhibits significant fade from 1, 2 or 3 stops from 60 MPH.
Fade doesn't become an issue in modern cars until repeat hard stops from elevated speeds are executed, which you would understand if you bothered to read the new CAR AND DRIVER article I referenced at the top of this thread.
KE = 1/2 MASS X VELOCITY SQUARED. Thus, a vehicle traveling @ 90 MPH has 2.25 times the Kinetic Energy of the same vehicle traveling @ 60 MPH, even though the difference in speed is just .50 (50%). The demands that are placed on the brakes therefore rise by the same factor, since the brakes (rotors) must dissipate that energy.
You clearly have no understanding of brakes, fade, basic engineering principals or thermodynamics. That's not intended as an insult; it's just simple fact.
Because you don't understand the engineering aspects of this, here is all you need to know:
REAL performance cars (e.g. Porsche, BMW, MB, Corvettes, etc.) all use LARGE DIAMETER, THICK and HEAVY (lots of mass) rotors. Go check out the rotors on a new 2008 BMW M3 (about the same weight as a TL Type S) or, for that matter, a 335i. The rotors on my Acura TL Type S look positively pathetic in comparison.
Once you've done that, ask yourself who has the better high performance braking solution:
a) Acura TL (a glorified Accord)
b) BMW...and MB, Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, Aston Martin, etc., etc.
Fade doesn't become an issue in modern cars until repeat hard stops from elevated speeds are executed, which you would understand if you bothered to read the new CAR AND DRIVER article I referenced at the top of this thread.
KE = 1/2 MASS X VELOCITY SQUARED. Thus, a vehicle traveling @ 90 MPH has 2.25 times the Kinetic Energy of the same vehicle traveling @ 60 MPH, even though the difference in speed is just .50 (50%). The demands that are placed on the brakes therefore rise by the same factor, since the brakes (rotors) must dissipate that energy.
You clearly have no understanding of brakes, fade, basic engineering principals or thermodynamics. That's not intended as an insult; it's just simple fact.
Because you don't understand the engineering aspects of this, here is all you need to know:
REAL performance cars (e.g. Porsche, BMW, MB, Corvettes, etc.) all use LARGE DIAMETER, THICK and HEAVY (lots of mass) rotors. Go check out the rotors on a new 2008 BMW M3 (about the same weight as a TL Type S) or, for that matter, a 335i. The rotors on my Acura TL Type S look positively pathetic in comparison.
Once you've done that, ask yourself who has the better high performance braking solution:
a) Acura TL (a glorified Accord)
b) BMW...and MB, Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, Aston Martin, etc., etc.
06-25-2008, 03:38 PM
#51
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Once you've done that, ask yourself who has the better high performance braking solution:
a) Acura TL (a glorified Accord)
b) BMW...and MB, Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, Aston Martin, etc., etc.
a) Acura TL (a glorified Accord)
b) BMW...and MB, Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, Aston Martin, etc., etc.
As some other people have said, if you have a specific issue with the car or you feel that a performance aspect of it is lacking, why not mod it? That's why people modify stuff on their cars. People put twin turbo kits on Lamborghinis because they think that they're too slow. I took a perfectly good STi and dropped a built and bored 2.8L race engine into it with a big turbo because I thought it was too slow... but you didn't see me complaining constantly on forums about it
06-25-2008, 03:48 PM
#52
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Arrogance
Why doesn't anybody agree with you? Even if your are right, why don't they agree?
Because you post with arrogance, hyperbole and insults. You invite (and I suspect thrive on) arguement, NOT agreement.
Arrogance
And my personal favorite:
Because you post with arrogance, hyperbole and insults. You invite (and I suspect thrive on) arguement, NOT agreement.
Arrogance
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... the basic laws of thermodynamics and heat transfer, which you clearly no nothing about ....
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... You ignorance on that has been WELL DOCUMENTED, via a host of links.
Have you forgotten? ....
Have you forgotten? ....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... That's because no-one here (including you) understands how brakes actually work .... All you know is that the front calipers say "Brembo."
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
....Have you ever driven a car with REAL BRAKES? Clearly you have not. ....
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... Trust me: I've forgotten more about brakes than you will ever know.
....
.....
....
.....
And my personal favorite:
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
....
NOTE to "drdr": You'll probably want to drop this "debate" right here, since I'm a walking encyclopedia on this topic, have a mechanical engineering degree, have driven cars with REAL BRAKES at REAL SPEEDS and can post all night long about this...
.....
NOTE to "drdr": You'll probably want to drop this "debate" right here, since I'm a walking encyclopedia on this topic, have a mechanical engineering degree, have driven cars with REAL BRAKES at REAL SPEEDS and can post all night long about this...
.....
06-25-2008, 03:48 PM
#53
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Generalizations and Hyperbole
How can anyone take you seriously? 
Useless Generalizations and Hyperbole
Useless Generalizations and Hyperbole
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
No modern car exhibits significant fade from 1, 2 or 3 stops from 60 MPH.
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... This car's brakes are simply lame - ....
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... My PIG weighs about the same as a new BMW 5 series. As such, it should have the same size rotors. ....
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... 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. ....
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
....Acura .... Their products are all about gizmos, bells, whistles, marketing and, sadly, sketchy customer support.
I will personally never buy another one. ...
.....
I will personally never buy another one. ...
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... You should sell it.
It doesn't stop, either, with those dinky little rotors ....
.....
It doesn't stop, either, with those dinky little rotors ....
.....
06-25-2008, 03:48 PM
#54
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Insults and Misc Vitriol
You obvisoulay hate the car the YOU purchased; This is not going to win freinds and influence people:
Insults and Vitriol
Insults and Vitriol
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... Here are the rotor size specs for the TL. They are laughable. .... The rears are pathetic.....
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... In other words, you're just plain WRONG. ....
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... You ignorance on that has been WELL DOCUMENTED, via a host of links.
Have you forgotten? ....
Have you forgotten? ....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... That's right. THEY SUCK. .... Brembos .... are .... a marketing gimmick .... fancy front calipers and .... LAUGHABLY small rear calipers
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... windshield wipers suck ....
.....
.....
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... The wipers on my '07 TL-S are THE WORST wipers ....ever
.... The cheesy rubber cup-holder things....
.... boy-racer aluminum gas pedal that provides NO GRIP ....
.... cheesy red "accent" footwell lighting that .... Acura subbed that part out to J.C. Whitney .....
.... The cheesy rubber cup-holder things....
.... boy-racer aluminum gas pedal that provides NO GRIP ....
.... cheesy red "accent" footwell lighting that .... Acura subbed that part out to J.C. Whitney .....
06-25-2008, 03:49 PM
#55
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Please Make It Stop!!!!
Oh ....GAWD!!! 24 more months of this 
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
.... It'll be paid off in 25 months and I'll be dumping it after that for a REAL performance sedan
.....
.....
06-25-2008, 03:51 PM
#56
AZ Community Team
Originally Posted by Bearcat94
And my personal favorite:
06-25-2008, 04:13 PM
#57
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WRXtranceformed
Apples to kumquots. You're comparing sports cars, many of which are 2 to 10 times more expensive than the TL-S, to a sporty family sedan.
Entry level BMWs and even far lesser cars (e.g. Nissan Maxima) have larger rotors than an Acura TL Type S.
This base model 328i is somewhat slower than a TL-S, is 200+ pounds lighter and yet it uses 12.3" F and 11.8" R rotors.
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...fications.aspx
The Nissan Maxima uses 12.6" Front brakes and 11.50" rears:
http://www.nissanusa.com/maxima/specifications.html
The base model Infiniti G35 uses 12.6" X 1.1" F rotors and 12.1" X 0.6" rear rotors while the Sport model uses 13" X 1.3" F rotors and 13" X 0.6" rear rotors.
http://www.infiniti.com/g_sedan/specifications.html
This lowly Mitsubishi Lancer GTS (a ~ $22K, 168 HP, 3,043 pound economy car) uses 11.6" F/11.9" rear rotors.
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/j...s.do?loc=en-us
Excluding other Honda sedans (e.g. new Accord), it's virtually impossible to find a car of the TL-S's weight that uses rotors that are anything close to being as dinky as those that are used in the Acura TL-S.
06-25-2008, 04:18 PM
#58
Registered but harmless
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 59
Posts: 14,857
Received 1,149 Likes
on
775 Posts
Harddrivin- I don't drive any car hard enough on the street that fade or absolute stopping power is an issue- only morons, douches and losers will do that.
Anyone that drives on a track will select the appropriate car and upgrades.
What if he buys a 2009 TL with bigger rotors, or is one of those that will stay on the board here even when he gets an Audi, BMW or piece-of-chit Chebbie?? Harddrivin' could be like some of the postwhores in the Ramblings section, who haven't owned an Acura in years.
Maybe he can just PM you about brakes from now on....
Anyone that drives on a track will select the appropriate car and upgrades.
Originally Posted by Bearcat94
Oh ....GAWD!!! 24 more months of this
Maybe he can just PM you about brakes from now on....
06-25-2008, 04:23 PM
#59
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This 2,900 pound, 156 HP, ~ $17,000 Mazda 3 uses 11.8" F and 11.0" R rotors, which are essentially identical in size to what's used in the base model Acura TL, which is 700 pounds heavier and significantly quicker.
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ehicleCode=M3H
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ehicleCode=M3H
06-25-2008, 04:25 PM
#60
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Will Y.
Harddrivin- I don't drive any car hard enough on the street that fade or absolute stopping power is an issue- only morons, douches and losers will do that.
Anyone that drives on a track will select the appropriate car and upgrades.
What if he buys a 2009 TL with bigger rotors, or is one of those that will stay on the board here even when he gets an Audi, BMW or piece-of-chit Chebbie?? Harddrivin' could be like some of the postwhores in the Ramblings section, who haven't owned an Acura in years.
Maybe he can just PM you about brakes from now on....
Anyone that drives on a track will select the appropriate car and upgrades.
What if he buys a 2009 TL with bigger rotors, or is one of those that will stay on the board here even when he gets an Audi, BMW or piece-of-chit Chebbie?? Harddrivin' could be like some of the postwhores in the Ramblings section, who haven't owned an Acura in years.
Maybe he can just PM you about brakes from now on....
A lowly Mazda Speed 3 has larger rotors than my TL-S even though the Mazda is roughly 600 pounds lighter and $16,000 less expensive.
The current TL-S's brake rotors are simply UNDERSIZED by any contemporary "performance car" measure.
They would be suitable for a ~ 2,800 pound car - like an S2000.
06-25-2008, 05:01 PM
#61
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
So all of the other brake engineers working for other manufacturers who specify real rotors are "morons, douches and losers?"
A lowly Mazda Speed 3 has larger rotors than my TL-S even though the Mazda is roughly 600 pounds lighter and $16,000 less expensive.
The current TL-S's brake rotors are simply UNDERSIZED by any contemporary "performance car" measure.
They would be suitable for a ~ 2,800 pound car - like an S2000.
A lowly Mazda Speed 3 has larger rotors than my TL-S even though the Mazda is roughly 600 pounds lighter and $16,000 less expensive.
The current TL-S's brake rotors are simply UNDERSIZED by any contemporary "performance car" measure.
They would be suitable for a ~ 2,800 pound car - like an S2000.
Originally Posted by Bearcat94
Why doesn't anybody agree with you? Even if your are right, why don't they agree?
06-25-2008, 05:01 PM
#62
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
Nope...
Entry level BMWs and even far lesser cars (e.g. Nissan Maxima) have larger rotors than an Acura TL Type S.
This base model 328i is somewhat slower than a TL-S, is 200+ pounds lighter and yet it uses 12.3" F and 11.8" R rotors.
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...fications.aspx
The Nissan Maxima uses 12.6" Front brakes and 11.50" rears:
http://www.nissanusa.com/maxima/specifications.html
The base model Infiniti G35 uses 12.6" X 1.1" F rotors and 12.1" X 0.6" rear rotors while the Sport model uses 13" X 1.3" F rotors and 13" X 0.6" rear rotors.
http://www.infiniti.com/g_sedan/specifications.html
This lowly Mitsubishi Lancer GTS (a ~ $22K, 168 HP, 3,043 pound economy car) uses 11.6" F/11.9" rear rotors.
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/j...s.do?loc=en-us
Excluding other Honda sedans (e.g. new Accord), it's virtually impossible to find a car of the TL-S's weight that uses rotors that are anything close to being as dinky as those that are used in the Acura TL-S.
Entry level BMWs and even far lesser cars (e.g. Nissan Maxima) have larger rotors than an Acura TL Type S.
This base model 328i is somewhat slower than a TL-S, is 200+ pounds lighter and yet it uses 12.3" F and 11.8" R rotors.
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Conte...fications.aspx
The Nissan Maxima uses 12.6" Front brakes and 11.50" rears:
http://www.nissanusa.com/maxima/specifications.html
The base model Infiniti G35 uses 12.6" X 1.1" F rotors and 12.1" X 0.6" rear rotors while the Sport model uses 13" X 1.3" F rotors and 13" X 0.6" rear rotors.
http://www.infiniti.com/g_sedan/specifications.html
This lowly Mitsubishi Lancer GTS (a ~ $22K, 168 HP, 3,043 pound economy car) uses 11.6" F/11.9" rear rotors.
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/j...s.do?loc=en-us
Excluding other Honda sedans (e.g. new Accord), it's virtually impossible to find a car of the TL-S's weight that uses rotors that are anything close to being as dinky as those that are used in the Acura TL-S.
Originally Posted by Bearcat94
Why doesn't anybody agree with you? Even if your are right, why don't they agree?
06-25-2008, 05:02 PM
#63
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Originally Posted by harddrivin1le
This 2,900 pound, 156 HP, ~ $17,000 Mazda 3 uses 11.8" F and 11.0" R rotors, which are essentially identical in size to what's used in the base model Acura TL, which is 700 pounds heavier and significantly quicker.
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ehicleCode=M3H
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ehicleCode=M3H
Originally Posted by Bearcat94
Why doesn't anybody agree with you? Even if your are right, why don't they agree?
06-25-2008, 05:11 PM
#64
Senior Moderator
Ok, fine, the TL has bad brakes in terms of rotor size. THE END
Mod's, please close this thread.
Mod's, please close this thread.
06-25-2008, 05:20 PM
#65
Best suggestion I've had all day.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mada51589
3G TL Problems & Fixes
79
05-03-2022 08:54 PM
nuldabz
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
3
09-03-2015 05:49 PM
