PsychDoc

I was thinking that in straight ahead speed these two would be pretty much neck and neck with the 25 additional hp of the AWD vehicle being offset by it's added weight and drivetrain mechanical complexity.

I assume the AWD would outrun the FWD car in any slalom or road race because of it's SH-AWD.

Has anyone ever tested these two cars side by side?

Wavehogger

When spring hits, let's get some New Englanders together for a track day at Epping, NH. And not just 4G's, lets make it an all Acura day! And anything else you want to bring if you're on AZ. But you can't line up with me if you're bringing a GT-R.

I volunteer to organize the event if people will commit.

ll_22

Well if you believe the magazine testings then the FWD is often timed very similarly 0-60 and 1/4mi-wise.

More controversial I think is the actual best 0-60 time since Acura refuses to publish anything official. We've all seen number as low as wave's 5.7+ to edmunds' 6.7s for the SHAWD.

However, Acura had been quoted by some to state the SH-AWD is 0.3sec faster 0-60. Personally, I think the higher final drive ratio probably does help the 0-60 time but the extra drag from weight probably catches up in the 1/4mi time.

csmeance

the SH-AWD may be slower by about .5 second IMO based on my experience with the MDX...

Wavehogger

I know what a few magazines have said but after the big difference in performance results from them, Jeff over at TOV, and my own testing, the only way this will be solved is at the track. (and youtube)

I've driven the FWD a number of times and it's easy to tell with the gearing in the SH that it's quicker in the 1/8th mile, but I think the FWD could possibly catch up if they were running past the 1/4 mile to the 128mph limiter. Now if it was a moving race from say 70mph, then who knows. And as soon as an opportunity arises I'll let you know the outcome.

037

RL 0-60 5.9, measured with Escort GT2, food for thought :-)

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Nice, that's actually faster than the fastest time I've seen for the 2G RL. I remember Car and Driver got 6.3s for 0-60mph an 14.8@96mph for the 05 RL.

037

those same losers got 6.5s for 09, and something similar for the 04-08 TLs. Guess What? My 06TL was doing mid 7's!!! Just one time I got it to go 0-60 in 6.9.

Something about brake torquing? I think they hold down brake while gasing up and then let it go and see what happens.

Does not seem practical as most people won't abuse their car like that.

Regardless, they low balled the new RL.

BEAR-AvHistory

C&D readily admits to 'abusing' the test cars to get the absolute best times out of them. In one test they talked about dumping the clutch & riding out the axel tramp.

Comparing the street start numbers car to car will give you a better feel as to how they will do under normal condition with an owner/driver at the wheel.

Bearcat94

At the 1/4 mile, the 3G is only doing 95 - 100 MPH (un-modded and depending on model and trans).

Launch on the 4G is the real issue, isn't it? Something about cutting power if you brake-torque, or some such restriction that slows the launch to a crawl. Slow launch = slow time. 3G does not have this kind of restriction (assuming VSA off).

037

Well, the street start on C & D has RL at 6.9s.

I ran my car 5.9 without having to run it a 2nd time. Just step on the gas and flip the paddles when RPM hit 6k.

C & D numbers for 2009 RL are useless. I guess Acura isn't paying as much as BMW to post good #'s.

BEAR-AvHistory

Standing start numbers will always be quicker then street start. BTW how do you know you ran 5.9?

BEAR-AvHistory

IIRC I have never seen a 0-60 for an RL the was better then 6.7, most are 7+

037

as mentioned previously I used Escort GT2, look it up.

Upon request I would be more than happy to repeat it, or include a photo of the numbers off the gizmo it self.

also, to make sure I wasn't crazy I ran it against my 06TL 4x. By 40mph more than a car ahead...good bye ol' friend I said.

037

Here's a link to save you all of 5 seconds of googling.

http://www.amazon.com/Escort-Passpor.../dp/B00012O7EC

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

This is for the 09 RL:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

"Acceleration also stays essentially flat, with the 0-to-60-mph run taking 6.5 seconds. "

And here is a test of the 05RL:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ns+page-2.html

"Its 0-to-60 run went from 6.3 to 6.4 seconds, and the quarter-mile pace went from 14.8 to 14.9 seconds at 95 mph."

BEAR-AvHistory

6.3/4 to 5.9 is a pretty big jump since most people find it hard in any car to match C&D 0-60 runs.

That being said 14.8/9 seems reasonable as some prior gen RL's were running 15.1/2 at the track.

037

I'll run it again to make sure I wasn't going down a slight hill or something

BEAR-AvHistory

Just got the April C&D in the mail. The road test summary lists page 98.

'09 Acura RL SH-AWD (09/08) $50,660, 0-60/quarter mile 6.5/15.1, top speed 131mph, 70-0 183ft, 0.84G, 16/22mpg.

Interesting aside, this is the current best (High-5) entry level luxury cars, page 97.

1. BMW-3 series

2. Infinity G series

3. Cadillac CTS

4. Audi A4

5. Acura TSX.

kabota

How many miles were on you RL when you did this?

The C&D results may have came from a new engine, while yours may have been broken in.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Ya, that's possible, looking at the test sheet on Car and Driver, the 09 RL they tested only had 1454 miles, it's somewhat broken in, but not completely for sure.

And 037, did you brake torque when you tested your car? Or have you tried brake torquing? If so, did the car shift to 2nd gear automatically like the 09 TL? If it does that, then that another reason that explains why the 0.5s difference between your time and C&D's time.

BEAR-AvHistory

A half second is a lot of time......almost an eternity in a drag race & not at all easy to make up.

The thing I am wondering is why you expect an RL which is a heavier car with less power & torque to be faster/quicker then the lighter & more powerful TL?

037

To be clear, I was comparing 09 RL w/ 4500mi on it to an 06TL with 30k on it.

No, I never tried brake torquing and never will.

As mentioned before, dropped the car in the S mode, paddle shifted my self to gear 1, floored the pedal, shifted at 6k or so. Had to actually keep an eye on the road so didn't approach the red line as close as I could have.

Regardless, huge improvement over my 06TL, that car was running mid 7's no matter what you threw at it. Managed 6.9 once and never again.

I will probably have a chance to run the RL to 60 tomorrow, I'll keep you posted.

Blazing GT

it is all about your shifting capabilities

037

I'm sure C&D ran their car more than once. I don't see how repeated attempts for me could make it any worse.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

If you do brake torquing in the new TL, the car will automatically shift to 2nd gear, even if you tell it to be in 1st. Then when you release the brake and floor it, the car has to shift back to 1st gear, that alone will cost you a lot of time. This is probably why Wavehogger on this forum and Jeff at Temple of VTEC were able to achieve consistent 0-60 runs that are below 6s, while mags couldn't. I'm wondering if the new RL has this issue too, considering both the 09 TL and 09 RL use pretty much the same engine/drivetrain and weight relatively close.

Then think about it from another point of view, if the 05 RL with 290hp and much less torque was able to do 0-60mph in 6.3s, why would the 09 RL with an extra 0.2L, 10hp, and ~15lbft of torque be any slower (yes it's heavier, but it's the extra power is more than enough to offset the weight gain).

Edward'TLS

Keep in mind that the 05 RL is equipped with 17" rims (245/50R17 98V A/S tires) which are lighter than the 09 RL's 18" rims (245/45R18 96V A/S tires). Unsprung weight is a major performance killer, and this might help explain if the 09 RL is slower in 0-60.

037

I replaced MXM4's with Pilot Sport A/S, I doubt it would make any grip difference in the dry as the car never loses grip anyway.

BEAR-AvHistory

I am sorry but there is no way a 15 second car is running 0-60 in the high 5's.

C&D 6.5/15.1 95mph

Edmonds 7.2/15.3 92mph

R&T old model 6.7/15.1 95.1mph

Drag Times 4 entries on old car 15.010 - 15.320 seconds 92.680 - 95.110mph

Drift Concept: "The European '09 model has the 3.5L V6 is replaced with a new 3.7L plus new exhaust side VTEC, putting out an even 300hp - 220kW which translates to a 20% increase in mid-range torque and a 0-60 time of 7.1 seconds"

Also there is nobody with any track time that thinks 10hp/15lbs on a 4,000lb car is worth anything near 1/2 a second on a car that weighs the same let alone one that is heavier.

A better answer for the sub 6 second time is a calibration issue with the Escort. These units can be pretty close to the strip clocks but they need a lot of dialing in at the strip to get there.

Edward'TLS

Try replacing the heavy OEM rims with light-weight forged rims, and you'll immediately notice the difference in throttle response and clocked acceleration times.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

You seem to have missed some parts of my previous posts.

Car and Driver previously got 14.8s in the 05 RL, that's not in the 15's. That's in the 14's.
"http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ns+page-2.html

"Its 0-to-60 run went from 6.3 to 6.4 seconds, and the quarter-mile pace went from 14.8 to 14.9 seconds at 95 mph."

Jeff at Temple of VTEC (he writes most of the reports and tests most of the cars) got the following numbers from the 09 TL SH-AWD (he did a series of runs and they are all very consistent:

60': 2.2-2.3 @ 30.2-30.3 mph
330': 6.1-6.2 @ 61.4-62.2 mph
0-60mph: 5.9-6.0 sec (all runs except one were 5.9 sec, and I'm pretty sure that was one where I snagged the limiter on 1-2)
1/4 mile (only two full 1/4 mile runs were performed): 14.3@97.2 and 14.4@98.2 were the results.

Mileage on that TL was 2650 miles.
Here is the link:
http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=809066

And as I said earlier, as proven by Wavehogger on this board, if you brake torque too much, the car will shift into second gear AUTOMATICALLY even if you select first gear. Wavehogger's video shows that very clearly. And if didn't even know what until he watched the video himself. He felt there was a "lag" or "delay" during the run, but didn't know why. And as he showed in another video, if you DO brake torque, you will not get to 60mph in less than 6 seconds, and consequently, you will be getting high 14's/low 15's. And again, my concern is, does the RL also have this feature (shifting to second gear automatically when brake torquing)?

The 09 RL pretty much uses the same engine/drivetrain as the 09 TL, except that it's slightly heavier, but both are around 4000lbs. The amount of fuel and the weight of the driver are enough to offset the difference. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the difference in power ratings is purely a marketing gimmick. Since the TL is an important car for Acura, Acura might purposely rate that engine slightly more powerful than the RL's (by 5hp and 4lbft) so that they can say "the most powerful Acura built" when they market the TL.

037

So, I ran the car again as promised. First run 6.05 and smacked the rev limiter on the 1-->2, second 6.07.

Here is the photo of my 5.9 run along with the stoping numbers. No ABS involved but I did run out of space that time

BEAR-AvHistory

I did not miss that you posted an old test of a different car.

This is C&D's posted summery of their times..."'09 RL 6.5/15.1 95mph""...its in every issue so it must be the one they are confident about

"Its 0-to-60 run went from 6.3 to 6.4 seconds, and the quarter-mile pace went from 14.8 to 14.9 seconds at 95 mph." has no relevance at all ;its for a 2005 car test 3 or 4 years ago..

The other magazines tested the '09 RL at 92/95mph all in the low 15's. If you take the best of the best from C&D, the 2005 test, its still at 95mph & about 1/2 off a 5.9.

"""TL: 0-60mph: 5.9-6.0 sec (all runs except one were 5.9 sec, and I'm pretty sure that was one where I snagged the limiter on 1-2) 1/4 mile (only two full 1/4 mile runs were performed): 14.3@97.2 and 14.4@98.2 were the results."""

I think the runs with the '09 TL are meaningless in developing a time/speed for the RL because its a different car, but if you want to use them they are pulling 97/98 MPH & are 1/2 second quicker then the RL.

This is saying that either the TL is lighter, more powerful then the RL or both.

If you want to believe that the RL is a sub 6 second car to 60mph be my guest, but you have not proved the point that supports this belief.

As for the Passport numbers out of the box it is also meaningless except for determining if a change to the car has helped or hindered performance. It can become very accurate but has to be dialed into the specific car with a lot of runs at the track against real clocks.

037

Why would the passport need to be dialed in for a car? That is only necessary for horsepower measurements.

0-60 is fully automated, regardless of what's driving it.

You may want to research it better before brushing it off as a useless piece of hardware.

037

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph-nFaXY3F4

BEAR-AvHistory

C&D test of the Passport:

"The Passport has an adjustable distance rollout. To ensure accuracy, there is a pitch factor to calibrate the meter. The owner's manual provides suggestions for different types of cars, and we used the correction factor of 2.5 when the Passport was installed in the Pontiac G6.

After performing the four initial runs, we experimented to find a number that made the meter line up closer with the drag-strip results, which turned out to be 3.4.

The Passport's braking numbers were five to eight feet longer than what our VBOX recorded. It's likely, however, that fiddling with the calibration factor would have reduced the discrepancy, but we're guessing that owners of these personal meters probably won't spend an excessive amount of time trying to get perfect results. "

037

I feel like this can only be resolved by a stop light race...

BEAR-AvHistory

Its hard to tell from your video but it looks like you hit the gas about 30/31 seconds into it. It also looks like the needle hits 60 at 38 seconds.

C&D Passport test in test G6 Pontiac

1/4 mile Time

Passport - 16.29sec
Track timer - 16.60sec

1/4 mile speed
Passport - 85.50mph
Track trap speed - 84.05mph

Breaking
Passport 138ft
V-box 131ft

Skid Pad
Passport - .81G
Timer - .79G

037

that video is of a 6.5s run to be precise.

I also had to twist the wheel to go around the car I was standing behind...

Wavehogger

Yes, iforyou I have driven the new RL and can confirm it is the same drivetrain setup and does also default to 2nd gear when brake torqued. And so does the 09 MDX. The RDX is the only SH-AWD that doesn't do it.

As always Bear's tech explanation is right on the mark! I couldn't have said it better. Calibration is key. And you can't deny the laws of physics. I know I won't beat a G37 either, it's lighter, has more gears, and more HP, but I'm not bitter, it's not what I wanted.

And I would love to line up with you 037, I will slowly just pull away. Go drive the TL and you'll see for yourself it's quicker. Enjoy that classy RL with its beautiful interior, and noise cancelling ride.