JD, I have measured the times on the TL and RL more than once. I do not have the TL anymore but the results are still within the Escort GT2.

Results of the RL have been posted in the 0-60 thread. They were as high as 6.5 and as low as 5.9.

My TL was as low as 6.9 and as high as 7.87. In fact, the TL broke the 7 second barrier only once in the almost 3 years that I owned it.

RL on the other hand gave me 5.9, 6.05, 6.07 and a video taped 6.3 as well as 6.45s.

There is no doubt in my mind that the RL is tons faster than the 3G TL.

I was misled by C&D on the acceleration times of the RL. C&D reported TL to be a 6.5s car and I could never come close, I thought C&D was full of it.

When I got the RL I expected it to be a tiny bit faster if not the same.

The acceleration results blew me away.

Here's the link to the 0-60 thread with 2 videos and multiple photos of the Escort GT2, hope this helps.

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...=711640&page=2

 

If you used the same box for both cars, I think that's pretty strong evidence that the RL is faster 0-60. Even if there is some error in the measurement, the comparison between the two cars will be valid as long as the error is consistent. Since you made multiple runs with both cars, I think you have a pretty strong case.

 

Yes, I used the same "box".

And if you were sitting in either the RL or TL you wouldn't be close to a doubt.

As I said, I ran the RL personally against my lead footed cousin and I sat in the TL for two runs against my brother who barely distringuishes the gas pedal from the brake.

The RL is faster, A LOT FASTER.

If further proof is necessary, any TL in the Brooklyn area is welcome to a stop light 0-40 race. Don't want to get too crazy, but that should be enough to show just how much faster the 3.7 is.

 

This is where you lose me. TL base is a sub-7.0 sec car? No way.

 

06 TL base ran 6.9s, ONCE.

What I say is that the TL is a mid to high 7's car, on average.

 

Here are the C&D numbers I was talking about:

"yet only the Lexus beats the Acura's 5.9-second run to 60 mph" - manual

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test

TL ripped off a 0-to-60-mph mark of just 5.8 seconds - manual

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test

At the track, the RL's 0-60 time came in at 7.2 seconds - auto

http://www.edmunds.com/acura/rl/2009/testdrive.html

I assume the auto TL would be about a second slower to 60, going by above manual reviews.

The RL test times are obviously BS as there is no brake torquing or a manual.

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.4 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.1 sec @ 95 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 131 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 183 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g

http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_g...cs+page-2.html

 

The mag's have tested, and myself and 037 have done actual real world comparisons with the 3G TL and others, and we're just stating that my Dynolicious app and 037's GT2, can at least give approx estimates. The boxes don't always give lower times but this topic has been fully exhausted. So let's not start this all over again.

It's not that simple with these AT's. You do need to get really good redline shifts to squeeze the best out of them. If you leave it in D or S they are a bit random as to the shift points. Sometimes it's 6000k and others it's 6500. Which I found in racing the (3G 4G TL) and RDX recently made a huge difference. Left to shift on it's own all these vehicles were much closer to each other. When held to the limiter they all did much better. So as always a major part of a race as Bear states is reaction time, momentum etc. I hope to get a track day thread started soon when I know a good day I can do it and see how many different cars we can get up to Epping, NH and have some fun!

 

The real question is not if a 4G or 2.5G cars are faster than 3G, the question is how much?

 

I know you want to know that answer. But the only way to know if anything is quicker is to be able to have all the cars at the same track running one after another all day. Otherwise, even if I ran a 14.7 in Epping, NH and you went to the NJ track and ran the same time, it's not the same conditions so it would kinda be irrelevant. Other than a sort of baseline to start from. When I lived in San Diego there were a few 1/4" tracks and my same car would be consistently higher or lower by .5-.75 seconds at each track. Some are slight uphill, some down, some have more wind... Get the idea? And the temp would always make a big difference as well. It isn't cut and dry.

 

Lol, looks like both JD23 and Wavehogger said what I wanted to say....

Anyways, 037, here are some links that you might like to see:

First, here's a 2G TL-S 5AT from C&D:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

In terms of power/torque to weight ratio, this car is the closest to the 3g TL 5AT.

Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 36.9 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.5 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 14.8 sec @ 96 mph

However, in general, people here find that the 3G TL 5AT is actually slightly slower than the 2G TL-S due to the tranny. It seems like the tranny is "slower" in the 3G model.

Here's a test from Motortrend of the 3G TL 5AT:
http://motortrend.automotive.com/398...-tl/index.html

0-60 mph, sec 6.9

So that's in line with what you got in your previous car.

However, on another Motortrend comparison test, the TL was much faster:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...test_data.html

0-60: 6.3
0-100: 17.3
1/4 mile, sec @ mph: 14.78 @ 94.40

 

I've driven a 4G TL SH-AWD a number of times now, and from a driving dynamics perspective....it wins hands down over my 3G TL-S. While it seems that the 4G *may* be fractionally slower than a TL-S ( which is debateable IMO, because the car that I drove felt just as, if not quicker) the way that the car handles is superior than the old FWD TL-S. Torque steer (which is the biggest negative of the 3G, IMO) has virtually been eliminated with AWD and the 4G has a more planted feel in stock form (which in fairness to the 3G can be solved with performance springs). But I feel that Acura addressed a many of the 3G TL's performance shortcomings with the new car, while incorporating more refinement.

I just really hope that they take to the next level with a (hopefully) 4G TL-S!

 

Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I would be interested in seeing a single person test the 4G SH-AWD, the 3G and the 3G Type S. 037's tests indicate that the 4G SH-AWD should be significantly faster than the 3G, but I wonder about the Type S.

 

I have to agree, been saying this to the 1320 club at the racing forum for a few days now. IMO, the problem with many who frequent the track, they forget about the race with the guy next to them, and focus on the race against themselves. That is actually good for ability, but doesn't help prepare much when dealing with real world scenarios, and variables that come up in the street. Most are under the impression that a single track time should be set in stone. Not to mention, the track is useless for any drop, roll, or top end runs, for any basis of comparison, whatsoever, a consideration for anyone in a TLS who may want an SH.


Forget the outcome. Reaction time or not, why even give serious thought to two time slips not run side by side, anyway? You want to be more rigorous in analysis and skeptical of claims that seem to be false, right. Amongst many other track variables, altitude seems to be a big topic of discussion, especially when comparing general track times of cars that seem to be within tenths of a second, anyway. So, I guess there can never be one true calibration, in the first place. It may have differnet #'s, but I rather save time and buy my own test box, atleast it's still the same constant basis for comparison, that can be done conveniently and as many times on as many cars as I want. It's a lot easier then getting everybody to the track, to get maybe four runs in if lucky, as if that is going to be enough to draw a valid conclusion, anyhow.

 

if you want performance, go buy a Porsche.

seriously, why not keep your TL - take the TL to your independent mechanic, see what it needs to keep it going for another few years - unless you have a zillion miles on it - odds are you need the standard stuff, brakes, tires, tune up, get it detailed, recondition the leather - you might spend a grand on it and it will run like a champ for another few years.

THEN - instead of going and buying a new TL which won't be ANY more fun than your existing 3G - you take that money and buy a used Boxster.

you can pickup NICE low mileage boxsters for 15k. that car is the most fun you will have on four wheels for 15k. or if you are a Honda/Acura guy through and through, get a used S2000. similar fun, similar power, and even more reliable.

i have been down the road of buying "sporty" sedans and trying to satisfy my need to have something practical AND fun/fast/sporty by buying ONE car to do it all. nothing compares to having ONE car for Daily Driving and ONE car for FUN. unless you owe a bunch of money on your TL and would then have two car payments - you CAN get into another sports car and keep yoru old one for the same o rless money than buying a new sedan that won't make you 100% happy

 

Isnt the Boxster a slow car? I was thinking a race between a TL and Boxster would be pretty close.

 

The Genesis 4.6 is faster than a Boxter (according to their ad.) but then what isn't? plus people don't buy Boxters to be fast... I hope.
If you want real fun, buy an Ariel Atom!!!

 

why not just go to Six Flags and ride Kinga Ka? 0-128 in 3.5

 

Speaking of 2 seaters, the Lotus Elise/Exige is much more fun than any Boxster....rare, fast, and is the closest thing to a race car made for the street.

 

Back on topic???



4G Performance over 3G

 

4G wins, end of topic.

 

Even the 4G FWD no Tech vs 3G 6MT TL-S?

 

that was a cheap shot...

 

3G MT is faster than the 4G FWD.
4G FWD faster than the 3G 3.2 auto.
Either 3G TLS are faster than the 4G FWD.
3G TLS auto and 4G SH-AWD(auto) are equal. 100mph+ ????
3G TLS MT is currently the fastest TL.
4G SH-AWD MT vs. the 3G MT ???? 100mph+ ????

 

I don't see 3G TLS MT being the fastest of the bunch. if SH-AWD 09 does 0-60 in 5.5 does the 3G TLS MT do it faster? I doubt it.

 

It was too easy.





I've seen a mag or two post ~5.5 or 5.6 for the 3G TL-S 6MT. But not faster that I recall.

I don't want to be convinced for two reasons:

1. The new car just looks/feels much bulkier;

2. I own a 3G TL-S, so I want it to be faster.



Even if the 4G is slower, the SH-AWD is going to take up a lot of slack.

 

^ LOL "2. I own a 3G TL-S, so I want it to be faster." hahahahahhahahahaha true that!

 

Here is the 3G Type-S test that did 0-60 in 5.5s.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...type_s_feature

I am not sure where you found the 4G doing 0-60 in 5.5s. All the credible sources (publications) that i have seen show the 4G SH-AWD on average in the low 6's with an exception from Jeff over at TOV that worked hard to get it into the high 5.9's and even at that once at 6s even.

I know wavehogger got a 5.44 using his iphone but even he admitted in his thread that it was probably wrong. The only other time i saw 5.5 was from a Honda tuning enthusiast magazine where it seems like they didnt even test the car but threw in the 5.5s time because they probably saw it over here at Acurazine in Waves thread. (its kind of odd no other results where published from this Honda mag such as braking, skid pad, 1/4 mile etc etc etc)

 

He actually got 6s even because he shifted too slowly and bounced of the rev limiter. It seems like most publications used the brake torquing technique and/or testing a TL with very little mileage (ie, C&D tested a TL with less than 500 miles on it). And we all know how brake torquing really slows things down for the TL SH-AWD.

Nonetheless, I still think the 3G TL-S MT is faster. And it's no slouch in corners too, as it has proven itself to be 2 seconds faster than its RWD competitors at Willow Springs.

 

well, I am judging the 4G SH-AWD based on my own results. I don't believe the iPhone app my self, but I think my Escort GT2 to be credible.

I've hit 5.9 as well as 6.05 and 6.07 and I presume the TL to be faster.

I've bounced off the rev limiter on both occasions and wasn't doing it on an empty trunk/gas tank.

Either way...C&D don't have much of my faith. They told me my TL could do mid 6's, it sure as hell couldn't even come close.

Then they tell me my RL is a 6.5s car...it sure ain't.

 

Here's the thing though:

In any racing with corners, for two cars of similar straight line speed/quickness, neither one will win the race in the straights. Drag racing down the straight, one car won't make a lot of ground on the other UNLESS one car is clearly dominant.

Where the race is won is in out-braking an opponent and/or getting in to and out of turns at higher speed. That's where the SH-AWD should help the 4G.

I've tracked my TL-S (AT). I know what I was able to do with that car, on track, at speed. I also know that getting through a curvy section properly could be worth 10+ MPH difference at the end of the next straight.

IF the same car had SH-AWD and it worked as advertised, the SH-AWD would easily outrun the one without.

If a car similarly capable to the TL-S has SH-AWD, it should have an real advantage at speed. What'd be neat is if a lap time comparision could be made between the TL-S and the 4G AWD on track.

 

Jeff thinks thats what happened but wasnt 100% sure. Its interesting to note that Jeff also found that their was no difference in performance if he lightly brake torqued the 4G or just hit the gas on the launch. I think another reason he may have recieved slightly better numbers than the automotive publications is because his model had the std 18" wheels vs the 19" HPT that the all the others used......

either way, after aprox 8 months since the 4G release, it's been tested by many reputable automotive resources that do this for a living with calibrated and certified equiptment thats costs thousands of dollars. Compared to some street racing tests on equiptment that isnt calibrated and certified on a continuous basis worth $12-$300 dollars.....(i know who im going to say is more credible).

I think we can all easily see that the 4G TL 5AT SH-AWD is a very low 6s 0-60 car. trying to say that the 3G is faster than the 4G is tough though considering only one 4G model has been released. I can see the 4G 6MT being as quick as the 2008 Type-S and if a 4G Type-S is released in a few years it should even be quicker.

 

lol, Bearcat94, I agree, I really want to see a race between the 3G TL-S 6MT vs the 4G TL SH-AWD 6MT. Both of these cars have beaten their competitors by 2 seconds, but on different tracks.

cp3117, I see where you are coming from. But what I am trying to say is the mileage on the test vehicle. Take the C&D test as an example, the test car only had 487 miles on it, usually in C&D tests, the test cars have above 2000 miles. I'm not trying to make any excuses here, but with the technology today, I'm not surprised if the ECU is under "protection mode" for the first 1500 miles or so. I can't find any proof for this though, but from looking at different performance numbers, most Honda vehicles tend to do quite a bit better after a certain period. In comparison, Jeff's TL had over 2500 miles on it when he did his testing.

Let's just say, typically, the 4G TL is a low 6s car, and on a good day, with a good driver, with some luck, it will hit high 5's.

 

My bassis for comparison was not on the 0-60. Any SH will have that advantage, I looked at the 1/4 mile and trap speeds of what is currently available. So it is safe to say the 3G TLS MT is the fastest but until you can line them up, who really knows.

 

037, you have to remember that the 3g auto can be easily brake tq'd. That's why C&D got those #'s, and we know why the RL #'s and new TL #'s came up short. Let's not forget your high quality tires, I can't stress enough how a good set of tires can help. I make cases against magazines for publishing slower times all day, but for faster times, that's a stretch. I still believe your RL is faster than the 3G 3.2 5AT and the 4G FWD. Your 0-60 may be strong, but the 3G 3.2 MT should pull sooner or later, as well as either TLS, naturally the SH TL also. This doesn't mean you can't win a race against any of these cars. You obviously have gotten the RL to run better than anything I have seen, and I have seen the actual video, not just the times.

 

winstrolvtec, thank you for the vote of confidence. Please bring the first victim.

 

3G MT is faster than the 4G FWD.
4G FWD faster than the 3G 3.2 auto.
Either 3G TLS are faster than the 4G FWD.
3G TLS auto and 3G MT(non type s) and 4G SH-AWD(auto) are equal. 100mph+ ????
3G TLS MT is currently the fastest TL.
4G SH-AWD MT vs. the 3G MT TLS ???? 100mph+ ????

 

Anybody know the total weight of the 09 TL SH stocks vs. the 19's? The 3rd generation 18 in. wheel and tire upgrade added 2 lbs. from the Michelin's and 3lbs. if you had the Turanza's. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the stock 17's weighed the same on all the 3G models. Regardless, the added traction should allow better #'s. HPT's usually have a lower rolling diameter becuase of lower thread, but it varies way too much and is too hard, and not nearly significant enough, to even account for. I went stock for stock, comparing all the best TL times, but it goes without saying that results will vary. The HPT option alone, should net the best results, but that wouldn't be fair for comparison. I can say that the PS2's on the 4G SH weigh 1 lb. less than stock, but it's meaningless without the rim specs.