AcuraTL085AT

Any guesses at what the 0 to 60 time will be for the 2009 TL and TL-S?

ifirahse

iTrader: (6)

I'll say 6 for the TL and 5.3 for the TL-S. Both auto.

TL_rcr

Mid 6's for the front driver and high fives for the SH-AWD.

ggesq

iTrader: (1)

There will not be a TL-S for MY 2009.

My guesses- mid 6 for the FWD and mid 7's for the SH-AWD.

cbusAcuracls

5.8-5.9 for the base and ~6.5 for the sh-awd

Cheif engineer stated they get the same performance out of the 3.5L (09) as they did in the 3.2L (04-08) so figure it will be close to the same w/ the fwd.

flydog

It is bigger and weighs more, but has about the same HP, so my guess is the same or slower.

cbusAcuracls

from Edmunds..."According to Acura, the TL SH-AWD is 0.3 seconds quicker from zero-to-60-mph than last year's TL Type-S, so figure it will run in the low six-second range."

"Despite the extra power, the TL SH-AWD doesn't feel much quicker than the standard TL. Sure, there's an extra 25 hp on board, but there's also another 200 pounds of weight too. The TL uses the same Super Handling All-Wheel-Drive system as the RL, so it's able to vary power between the front and rear wheels as well as between the rear wheels themselves."

base is only a 100lbs heavier than the 08 TL-S.
Sh-awd is 300 lbs heavier than the 08 TL-S. Not shabby considering they added awd.

kws6000

I agree.Besides being ugly,this thing is a fat pig.

kws6000

Only if the runs are done going downhill!

RSA_Secure

This from Motor Trend

carlos9827

iTrader: (2)

^^ cool, I would have said 0-60 would be 5.9 - 6.1 seconds....

cbusAcuracls

5.4-5.8 sec (MT est) ????? there is no manual.
~5.8 - 6.2 for AT??????

carlos9827

iTrader: (2)

Oh shit didn't even realize it said MT, you're right there is not MT for the 4G.

PG2G

Maybe it means Motor Trend estimate :P

RSA_Secure

MT = Motor Trend

I hate cars

3,900lbs!!!!! Maybe the engineers should hire Inaccurate for the design of the next TL.

Why AWD? The auto doesn't have nearly enough power to even begin needing it. 99.9% of the drivers on here can't exploit the ever so slight handling advantage over FWD, and it adds a ton of weight. Gas mileage definately suffers. I guess if you live where it snows a lot but that's the only advantage it's ever going to have over FWD.

I would be very surprised if the AWD version could manage a sub 6 second 0-60 and a sub 15 second 1/4 run.

Now the manual version if it ever comes out should be the fastest TL yet if the driver isn't afraid to set it on the revlimiter and dump the clutch at WOT.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

3900lbs seems reasonable IMO when you consider the similar-sized CTS RWD is over 4000lbs.

AWD is an option because people have been complaining the TL only offered FWD. Before they go all out with RWD, AWD is an "interim" solution. Besides, the SH-AWD is much different than any other AWD systems, that's why BMW and Audi are copying and improving the design. The FWD model is 37xx lbs, AWD model is 39xx. However, there are more than just AWD system, for instance, I'm sure the 18" rims on the AWD model are heavier than the 17" ones on the FWD.

You are right most drivers won't drive hard enough to see/feel the advantage of SH-AWD, but it's also true most drivers don't need 300hp too. I don't know, but people who are paying around $40k for a car will look for a lot of things, besides performance, they want features, quality, reliabilty, size, handling, gadgets, etc.

The 2G RL with 3.5L 290hp, 258lbft, 4000+lb, 5AT did 0-60 in 6.3s and 1/4mile in 14.8s@95mph according to C&D. This 4G TL SH-AWD with 5AT, 3.7L, 305hp, 275lbft, less than 4000lbs should be faster than that. I'd say 0-60 in 6s and 1/4mile in mid to high 14's.

I hate cars

You're definately right that most people don't buy the TL for it's performance but rather it's features and luxury. I'm one of those people.

I just don't see why AWD was added. RWD, definately. It would only cost a few extra lbs and would be more than capable of putting the 305 horses to the ground. Acura would've had a winner if they put the 305hp motor in a RWD 3,500lb TL. Now they have a new model with about the same straight line performance as the one it replaced with worse fuel economy, worse handling, and more weight.

Where I'm going with this is what's the point of the AWD and more power in this particular model? More complexity and weight with no performance gain....but with several drawbacks.

Eoanou

For those who thought there was little aftermarket for the 3G TL I'd figure there won't be anything but a CAI for this generation. I don't see why anyone would mod a 4G TL, it's not pretty enough and its way to heavy.

xejshinex

here's my guess

2009 FWD TL BASELINE 3.5L 280 hp 252 torque (5speed auto only) 6.2~6.4 second
2009 SH-AWD TL 3.7L 305 hp 275 torque (5speed auto only) 5.9~6.1 second

I heard they will have manual transmission for 2010 TLs...
let's wait for 2010/2011 TL Type-S and see what she can do..we are expectin 340+ horses for next type-s model...so maybe it can do around 5.4~5.5 range...I dunno

xejshinex

yea..I agree with u...
for those who bought 08 TL/TL-S, u guys made a right choice...
I don't expect good performance numbers on 09 TLs...it's just too heavy and ugly..especially hate that saturnish grille...if they put on grille from 3G, it will look much better IMO

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Like I said, SH-AWD is an "interim" solution. They will eventually have most, if not all Acura's to come standard with RWD. Apparently, the 4G TL and 2G TSX would be the last “new cars” to share platform with the Accord. At this moment, the RWD platform is not ready. And from my memory, I don’t recall Honda making any FR sedans (perhaps decades ago, and things have changed since then). Unlike Nissan or Toyota, Honda does not have any RWD platform suitable for sedans. The Lexus IS is based on the GS, and the GS is based on Toyota Crown. Nissan has had FR platforms for a long time so developing a FR sports/luxury sedan is easy for them too.

I’m not sure about the worse handling part, as Acura claims that the new TL will run away from the 3G TL-S on a racetrack. Again, the SH-AWD is not a typical AWD system. It’s like, why does the GTR, Evo, and Sti all have AWD systems? It’s certainly not the case similar to G35 and G35x, or 335i and 335xi, while those cars lose some performance and handling with AWD, the TL is different IMO.

I hate cars

I see what you're saying and you would be right if the AWD didn't add the extra weight. I'm aware of the mechanics of why they don't go straight to RWD, the engine has to be mounted transversely in this chassis.

I will never believe until I see it with my own eyes that the 4G will outrun a 3G TL-S on a track. It will never happen. Acura also claims there's not a pinging problem with the TL-S so I don't put much weight into their marketing department claims. If anything it's best chance of beating the 3G is on a dragstrip. AWD is AWD. You can manipulate it with computer controls controlling the diffs and power split but RWD is and always will be superior in all out handling. The AWD provides extra protection for the average person who thinks he can drive but would probably kill himself in a high powered RWD vehicle.

To me, this car is a let down. I hate weight. Hell, my GN is now 2,900lbs. I don't care about the performance aspect much at all. I'm just arguing to argue and I'm bored at work. Realistically, I'm disappointed because the weight penalty is going to make the performance equal to the 3G even with the extra power and AWD. The extra weight plus bigger motor kill gas mileage. More weight means more stress on drivetrain parts. At least they seem to have gotten the transmission issues taken care of. It's not a bad car but it's just not the car for me. I had planned on leasing a 4G since my 3G is just about paid off but I'm leaning more toward the IS350 or 335 now, prob the 335.

winstrolvtec

Figure the extra hp and tq will wash out the added weight, the new TL should still benefit from the additional traction. Quicker 0-60, same 1/4, but lower trap.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Perhaps, they are referring to the 3G TL-S 5AT without performance tires?
I see what you mean with the RWD thing, that’s why F1 machines are all RWD, and my dream car, the NSX-R is also RWD.

I think they tried hard to shave weight. The 4G TL is larger than the car it replaced, inevitably the weight would go up. Then they have to add in more features, more safety equipment, all these add up. The TL is now much larger than the 335i and IS350, I think they need to put in something more powerful under the TSX’s hood. There’s a gap between the TL and TSX now.

23109VC

the new TL will weigh 400 lbs more than an 08 TL-S and only has 20 more hp.

is the torque a lot more all across the power band?

20hp in the top end pulling an extra 400lbs losing MORE power to drivetrain losses in the AWD system is not goin to be faster in a straight line.

you are on the freeway, cruising at 75 and hammer it to pass someone. the FWD Type S will outrun this new car. period.

on a race track, professional drivers - i can see the AWD car winning. but "running away"... that is perhaps a stretch. the car won't be any faster, it will just get around turns quicker.

in race car terms - even tenths or hundreths of seconds is a big deal...so maybe it gets around a track .2 second quicker. or .5 or even one second. big deal to racers.

to you and me it's more like "big whoop de do". not enough to notice.

it won't be like racing your TL-S vs an EVO - not THAT kind of "running away"

more like racing a TL-S vs a stock TL...

Colin

I don't see how if this were RWD only there would be a significant weight savings? It would still need the driveshaft to the rear and it would surely use the SH differential to apportion torque across the rear axle. After these are there, how much can two small driveshafts and the f/r differential add? 100 lbs?