Acura TL Press Release
08-21-2008, 02:54 PM
#41
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Age: 38
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its not exactly an RL "exclusive", the 07/08 type S has the ANC system... I'd have to imagine that the SHAWD TL with tech package must have it included
08-21-2008, 05:39 PM
#42
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
Despite the Camaro SS weighing 3900 lbs and not having any sort of sophisticated AWD system, it outran an E46 M3 an Audi S5, and a Porsche Cayman S. There's been too much speculation with the sub-7:30 Nurburgring times.... now everyone thinks a 8+ minute lap time is slow!
And well, the Cobalt SS is the fastest FWD vehicle on the Nurburgring. Its even faster than a standard NSX. The next fastest vehicles are the Mazdaspeed 3 (8:39) and EP? Civic Type R (8:41). The Camaro weighs 1000 lbs more than the Cobalt SS.... thats impressive.
Not to mention how much the Cobalt SS costs ($23,000 starting), and how much the Camaro SS will cost ($28,000 starting) I'd say those are pretty good deals.
And well, the Cobalt SS is the fastest FWD vehicle on the Nurburgring. Its even faster than a standard NSX. The next fastest vehicles are the Mazdaspeed 3 (8:39) and EP? Civic Type R (8:41). The Camaro weighs 1000 lbs more than the Cobalt SS.... thats impressive.
Not to mention how much the Cobalt SS costs ($23,000 starting), and how much the Camaro SS will cost ($28,000 starting) I'd say those are pretty good deals.I’m actually not too sure if the Cobalt SS is the fastest FWD vehicle on the Nurburgring, I know for a fact that there’s a version of Renault Megane that did 8:15s. And also I have yet to see a time of the FD2 Civic Type R which is faster than a NSX-S-zero on Suzuka and about as fast as a Lan Evo 9 on Tsukuba.
No doubt though, the prices for the two chevy’s are good for their performance.
08-22-2008, 01:34 AM
#43
Lol, the standard NSX is actually a pretty slow car IMO. But that’s not surprising since it’s a car from the 90’s. I was just pissed at that person since he made it seem like the TL can’t handle. By the way, do you know the reasons why the Camaro is so heavy? I thought the previous gen was around 3300lb? What happened? Did it grow a lot in size?
I’m actually not too sure if the Cobalt SS is the fastest FWD vehicle on the Nurburgring, I know for a fact that there’s a version of Renault Megane that did 8:15s. And also I have yet to see a time of the FD2 Civic Type R which is faster than a NSX-S-zero on Suzuka and about as fast as a Lan Evo 9 on Tsukuba.
No doubt though, the prices for the two chevy’s are good for their performance.
I’m actually not too sure if the Cobalt SS is the fastest FWD vehicle on the Nurburgring, I know for a fact that there’s a version of Renault Megane that did 8:15s. And also I have yet to see a time of the FD2 Civic Type R which is faster than a NSX-S-zero on Suzuka and about as fast as a Lan Evo 9 on Tsukuba.
No doubt though, the prices for the two chevy’s are good for their performance.
My car is a previous gen, and it weighs 3420 give or take a few pounds.... it has a solid axle which is usually lighter since it uses less parts than an independent rear. The previous gen was still an F-Body platform, which was around since 1967, with updates throughout the years of course, but the new Camaro is being based off the new-ish Zeta platform for RWD which is designed to be flexible enough to accommodate sedans like the G8 and also the Camaro. Supposedly they were supposed to base other big GM sedans off of the Zeta too, like the Impala, but that's going to stay FWD.
I'm not exactly sure why it weighs more, but I guess it has more structural rigidity... it does handle great for the weight though. I'm sure the new Camaro will handle better than the previous gen despite the weight. I didn't get a chance to corner balance my car, but I'm sure the new Camaro will be closer to 50/50.
Likewise, the TL should handle better than the previous gen despite the extra weight. Its impressive how they report its even faster around a track, can't wait to see what they can do with a SH-AWD equipped Type-S 6MT. They must have tweaked with the AWD system. Doubt they'll test it on the Nurburgring though.
08-22-2008, 12:13 PM
#44
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
Thanks for the info on the Camaro. When I was a little kid, I thought the older Camaro (1988) was a Ferrari..lol….you know I think you kind of answered the question about the weight… it’s using the big Zeta platform.
Yea I don’t think they tested on the ring, otherwise they would’ve mentioned it all over the place, just like the MDX.
Yea I don’t think they tested on the ring, otherwise they would’ve mentioned it all over the place, just like the MDX.
08-27-2008, 12:31 PM
#45
I have to say that after all the hype, acura is just coming out with more HP and not much more in the transmission selection, which should be a 6AT or 6MT. The styling is not good at all it reminds of of what happens when you give one or two designers too much free reign.
I have always been a fan of acura from the performance perspective but I see many other options at the >40K price tag.
Who out there sees more power and not better gas mileage in this market is going to win over sales! I can see where that is a good thing, but I am not sure how people will react to this. Being an engineer I appreciate the challenges involved in designing a product, but I think this one is not going to hit the mark very well.
The 3.2 A4 for 09 will handle real world driving better, do 0-60 in the sub 6 range, has AWD, offers a shorter stopping distance, offers one of the best CVT power trains in the business for about 39k. The interior is second to none as far as I am concerned.
I hope at least the transmission is rock solid in this latest generation and not prone to any issues as seen in the 2g and early 3G models. If the interior is rattle free and uses upgraded materials what go a long way.
In the end the market has changed a bit with 4 buck gas and if they added a 6th gear and got better gas mileage as well, then I can see where more people might be interested.
I wish them luck
I have always been a fan of acura from the performance perspective but I see many other options at the >40K price tag.
Who out there sees more power and not better gas mileage in this market is going to win over sales! I can see where that is a good thing, but I am not sure how people will react to this. Being an engineer I appreciate the challenges involved in designing a product, but I think this one is not going to hit the mark very well.
The 3.2 A4 for 09 will handle real world driving better, do 0-60 in the sub 6 range, has AWD, offers a shorter stopping distance, offers one of the best CVT power trains in the business for about 39k. The interior is second to none as far as I am concerned.
I hope at least the transmission is rock solid in this latest generation and not prone to any issues as seen in the 2g and early 3G models. If the interior is rattle free and uses upgraded materials what go a long way.
In the end the market has changed a bit with 4 buck gas and if they added a 6th gear and got better gas mileage as well, then I can see where more people might be interested.
I wish them luck
08-27-2008, 10:35 PM
#46
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
6MT TL is coming in 2010.
The "other options" you are talking about in the 40k range, most of them are the "base" cars, ie, base 335xi. Load it up to TL SH-AWD w/tech level and it will be $53k. I just tried that today at bmwusa.com. And let's not talk about interior space...there's no comparison...
Not sure where you heard about the 2009 A4 3.2 will handle real world better. This is what C&D said in their road test, "Could use more power, adaptive steering makes you second-guess your own senses."
As far as acceleration goes, it takes less than 6s, 5.7s according to C&D, and 1/4 mile is 14.3s@100mph. The A4 3.2 is 3860lb and has 265hp/243lbft of torque. The TL, being 100lbs more and 5AT only, but 40 more hp and 30 more lbft of torque, I think as an engineer, you can figure out that the TL SH-AWD might be the same in terms of performance, if not faster.
Stopping distance, I'm not sure how you know that the A4 has shorter stopping distance, as no test has been conducted on the TL yet. What I know is that the TL's front brakes are as large as the ones on the Audi, but the TL's rear brakes are much larger at 13.1", compared with 11.3" on the A4. I'm not sure if the 3.2 model has CVT or not, the test model in C&D has a 6spd.
The tranny issue has been fixed for a long time and shouldn't be a concern for the 4G model at all.
The TL SH-AWD is rated at 17/25mpg, vs 18/26 of the A4. In the real world, according to C&D, the A4 got 19mpg. We still need to wait for more testing before we can see the real world fuel economy of the TL.
The "other options" you are talking about in the 40k range, most of them are the "base" cars, ie, base 335xi. Load it up to TL SH-AWD w/tech level and it will be $53k. I just tried that today at bmwusa.com. And let's not talk about interior space...there's no comparison...
Not sure where you heard about the 2009 A4 3.2 will handle real world better. This is what C&D said in their road test, "Could use more power, adaptive steering makes you second-guess your own senses."
As far as acceleration goes, it takes less than 6s, 5.7s according to C&D, and 1/4 mile is 14.3s@100mph. The A4 3.2 is 3860lb and has 265hp/243lbft of torque. The TL, being 100lbs more and 5AT only, but 40 more hp and 30 more lbft of torque, I think as an engineer, you can figure out that the TL SH-AWD might be the same in terms of performance, if not faster.
Stopping distance, I'm not sure how you know that the A4 has shorter stopping distance, as no test has been conducted on the TL yet. What I know is that the TL's front brakes are as large as the ones on the Audi, but the TL's rear brakes are much larger at 13.1", compared with 11.3" on the A4. I'm not sure if the 3.2 model has CVT or not, the test model in C&D has a 6spd.
The tranny issue has been fixed for a long time and shouldn't be a concern for the 4G model at all.
The TL SH-AWD is rated at 17/25mpg, vs 18/26 of the A4. In the real world, according to C&D, the A4 got 19mpg. We still need to wait for more testing before we can see the real world fuel economy of the TL.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mada51589
3G TL Problems & Fixes
79
05-03-2022 08:54 PM
Yumcha
Automotive News
2
09-04-2015 08:03 AM