Is the AWD faster than just the Front Wheel drive?
09-28-2011, 12:04 PM
#41
Suzuka Master
Why would a car with more HP be slower from a roll? I am curious about these new fangled physics interpretations. Where's TC when we need him??
09-28-2011, 01:54 PM
#42
Moderator
Why would a car with more HP be slower from a roll?
250 lbs is a lot of weight to be added on. 25hp 19tq increase isn't really that much to support the weight added on, its just about enough.
keep in mind that once it gets up to cruising speed, car will split its power to front and rear wheels. Putting 90% to front and 10% to the rear. FWD gets that 10% advantage at cruising speeds.
mind i also add that the drive train power loss is much greater on a awd than a fwd.
there are more factors than just "it has more hp thus it should win"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SH-AWD#Function
09-28-2011, 02:02 PM
#43
Cruisin'
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary Canada
Age: 44
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are you basing your "opinion" on? Because you've owned both? Your logic doesn't hold water since you use the weight factor as part of your "assumption". If weight was really the determining factor, then it stands to "reason" that from stop, the FWD would be faster.. but you state the opposite.
Why would a car with more HP be slower from a roll? I am curious about these new fangled physics interpretations. Where's TC when we need him??
Why would a car with more HP be slower from a roll? I am curious about these new fangled physics interpretations. Where's TC when we need him??
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/ca..._sh-awd_page_2
Subaru made the WRX faster in the quarter mile than the STI even though STI has 40 more hp. Different gearing, weight, power under the curve all play a role here. Just because it costs more doesn't automatically mean it's superior in every way.
09-28-2011, 02:32 PM
#44
Suzuka Master
?? 0.1 seconds?? OMFG, what a speedster! Is that from a stop, a roll?
As asked before, who gives a real shit anyway? Trust me, I really don't care, I will take my SH-AWD anyday of the week.
For some, speed is all that matters.. which insurance companies will benefit from in the long run....
As asked before, who gives a real shit anyway? Trust me, I really don't care, I will take my SH-AWD anyday of the week.
For some, speed is all that matters.. which insurance companies will benefit from in the long run....
09-28-2011, 05:38 PM
#47
The reality is the two are not far enough a part that driver influence wouldn't matter (barring any substantial errors that is) so therefore a magazine racing contradiction would exist on both sides of the coin, so it's not exclusive to the FWD. Not to mention all the other normal factors and variances that play into this sort of thing.
You could pull stats from many sources that make an argument favoring either one of the versions, so short of being the guys who engineered and tested the vehicles or extensively racing both version side by side under the same multiple situations and with exact as possible conditions, also being able to account for all other variances such as reaction times, driver weight, cylinder pressure, etc, etc, the only other way to better judge the contest IMO would be to pool all the available info and test/performance statistics and use dedcutive reasoning to infer.
You could drive both back to back and use the seat of the pants feel but we know that a sensation is not conclusive enough to determine much of anything with the different engine characters, weight, and drivetrains especially. We have all been in substantially slower cars that felt faster than either TL model, but is simply not the case so this doesn't count for much.
Being that a majority of the important info distinguishing the two in this context predates back to the pre-MMC models, I'll use that. Let's even look back at the previous generation TLS 5AT to start, which is also the model that I assume Acura based it's acceleration goals for the SH on.
The best performance numbers for the 3G 5AT TLS happened to be in and about the range of 6 sec flat and mid to low 14's. This particular model had a slightly stronger variant of the J35 rated at 286 hp vs this gen's 280 hp and 2 lb-ft torque difference, it also weighed around 50 less compared to a 09-11 base 4G and was more aerodynamic, with the gearing identical otherwise.
So it is no wonder why we see the slight dip in the 5AT 4G FWD's best published numbers, that is expected afterall, and coincidentally, we haven't really seen anything better than low 6's and mid to high 14's for it either. On the other hand, we have seen the 5AT SH just break 5's as well as run mid to low 14's in it's better showings even though it has it's fair share of worse performances but the same is true for the FWD.
The TLS is the particular 2WD version that I would give a slight overall edge to over a comparable SH. Much like the other brands 2WD vs AWD, they have very similar or near exact performance stats when comparing the best times available but I think this version has better roll and top end capabilities in comparison and is also why I feel the 4G models are pretty equal in this regard.
As far as the R&T article quote, a .1 difference is not at all that conclusive and beyond that, it's not like the models were tested side by side. It appears that they simply quoted what they had previously tested independently. It's also worth mentioning that the FWD can be brake torqued to reflect a little better in it's performance stats as opposed to it's regular driving ability when compared to the SH AT which does not allow this.
Ironically, R&T themselves were among some of the testers who achieved one of the best run times for the 5AT SH later on in another comparison, which was 5.9 and 14.4 and 99 mph. Both of their SH tests were done on the HPT model, so that part of it shouldn't account for any of the difference either. TOV's track testing is in line and nearly exact compared to these numbers as well. Despite the brake torquing ability, I still have not seen anything out of a 5AT 4G FWD (or 3G 5AT TLS for that matter) that matches that result even though it is not really that far from it so I wouldn't rule out that it is possible but there just isn't much of a case for it being definitely faster when you look at everything.
I am not claiming to be doing anything better than magazine racing myself but I am trying to substantiate it a bit more than just poiting out whatever stats or data simply makes whatever case. I do not really have a dog in this fight and while it's true I have an AWD, I got the 6MT in small part to avoid this.
What is not being accounted for in the recent points is the shorter final drive of the SH. Yes, there is more weight as well as additional drivetrain losses in the AWD but there is more power, shorter gearing, and there is the traction advantages, while the FWD is lighter, experiences less drivetrain loss, and can be braked torqued a little as opposed to none.
It sounds like most of that would be a total wash and it should be close enough that it can go either way so we can all assume whatever we want and it shouldn't really matter but IMO, I still feel there is enough there to warrant a slight edge to the AWD, as stated earlier. There should be enough power and torque to fully compensate for the weight even after the additional drivetrain losses are accounted for and I could very well be wrong, but I don't think that is the point (not my point anyway), it's really interesting to just get all the info out there and try to draw an appropriate conclusion or educated assumption.
You could pull stats from many sources that make an argument favoring either one of the versions, so short of being the guys who engineered and tested the vehicles or extensively racing both version side by side under the same multiple situations and with exact as possible conditions, also being able to account for all other variances such as reaction times, driver weight, cylinder pressure, etc, etc, the only other way to better judge the contest IMO would be to pool all the available info and test/performance statistics and use dedcutive reasoning to infer.
You could drive both back to back and use the seat of the pants feel but we know that a sensation is not conclusive enough to determine much of anything with the different engine characters, weight, and drivetrains especially. We have all been in substantially slower cars that felt faster than either TL model, but is simply not the case so this doesn't count for much.
Being that a majority of the important info distinguishing the two in this context predates back to the pre-MMC models, I'll use that. Let's even look back at the previous generation TLS 5AT to start, which is also the model that I assume Acura based it's acceleration goals for the SH on.
The best performance numbers for the 3G 5AT TLS happened to be in and about the range of 6 sec flat and mid to low 14's. This particular model had a slightly stronger variant of the J35 rated at 286 hp vs this gen's 280 hp and 2 lb-ft torque difference, it also weighed around 50 less compared to a 09-11 base 4G and was more aerodynamic, with the gearing identical otherwise.
So it is no wonder why we see the slight dip in the 5AT 4G FWD's best published numbers, that is expected afterall, and coincidentally, we haven't really seen anything better than low 6's and mid to high 14's for it either. On the other hand, we have seen the 5AT SH just break 5's as well as run mid to low 14's in it's better showings even though it has it's fair share of worse performances but the same is true for the FWD.
The TLS is the particular 2WD version that I would give a slight overall edge to over a comparable SH. Much like the other brands 2WD vs AWD, they have very similar or near exact performance stats when comparing the best times available but I think this version has better roll and top end capabilities in comparison and is also why I feel the 4G models are pretty equal in this regard.
As far as the R&T article quote, a .1 difference is not at all that conclusive and beyond that, it's not like the models were tested side by side. It appears that they simply quoted what they had previously tested independently. It's also worth mentioning that the FWD can be brake torqued to reflect a little better in it's performance stats as opposed to it's regular driving ability when compared to the SH AT which does not allow this.
Ironically, R&T themselves were among some of the testers who achieved one of the best run times for the 5AT SH later on in another comparison, which was 5.9 and 14.4 and 99 mph. Both of their SH tests were done on the HPT model, so that part of it shouldn't account for any of the difference either. TOV's track testing is in line and nearly exact compared to these numbers as well. Despite the brake torquing ability, I still have not seen anything out of a 5AT 4G FWD (or 3G 5AT TLS for that matter) that matches that result even though it is not really that far from it so I wouldn't rule out that it is possible but there just isn't much of a case for it being definitely faster when you look at everything.
I am not claiming to be doing anything better than magazine racing myself but I am trying to substantiate it a bit more than just poiting out whatever stats or data simply makes whatever case. I do not really have a dog in this fight and while it's true I have an AWD, I got the 6MT in small part to avoid this.
What is not being accounted for in the recent points is the shorter final drive of the SH. Yes, there is more weight as well as additional drivetrain losses in the AWD but there is more power, shorter gearing, and there is the traction advantages, while the FWD is lighter, experiences less drivetrain loss, and can be braked torqued a little as opposed to none.
It sounds like most of that would be a total wash and it should be close enough that it can go either way so we can all assume whatever we want and it shouldn't really matter but IMO, I still feel there is enough there to warrant a slight edge to the AWD, as stated earlier. There should be enough power and torque to fully compensate for the weight even after the additional drivetrain losses are accounted for and I could very well be wrong, but I don't think that is the point (not my point anyway), it's really interesting to just get all the info out there and try to draw an appropriate conclusion or educated assumption.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 09-28-2011 at 05:52 PM.
09-29-2011, 12:16 AM
#48
Burning Brakes
i heard dumping the clutch is very bad for the clutch and transmission. numerous people and mechanics have told me this.
another thing, you need to be careful launching an AWD car off the line too often puts stress on the drive terrain of the car since there is no wheel spin to release the stress.
another thing, you need to be careful launching an AWD car off the line too often puts stress on the drive terrain of the car since there is no wheel spin to release the stress.
09-29-2011, 01:12 PM
#50
COTM Coordinator
Ive beaten a FWD from a roll with my AWD..... me and my GF in my car, him and his friend in his car.........
Second time ive posted this.......
Just sayin
Second time ive posted this.......
Just sayin
09-29-2011, 01:28 PM
#51
Racer
I've owned both as well. I think the FWD has a slight delay when accelerating from a stop as the car does some sort torque steer management routine. perhaps limiting power or breaking one wheel.
The AWD feels nicer and more immediate as the car is immediately engaged, no torque steer.
If weight shifts to the rear who cares when the rear wheels are also pushing? its easy to squeel tires on the FWD thus wasting energy. I believe the AWD is more effective putting power down to the road.
Anyhow if there is curve or corner involved the AWD will blow the FWD out of the water.
The AWD feels nicer and more immediate as the car is immediately engaged, no torque steer.
If weight shifts to the rear who cares when the rear wheels are also pushing? its easy to squeel tires on the FWD thus wasting energy. I believe the AWD is more effective putting power down to the road.
Anyhow if there is curve or corner involved the AWD will blow the FWD out of the water.
09-29-2011, 03:04 PM
#53
COTM Coordinator
The reality is the two are not far enough a part that driver influence wouldn't matter (barring any substantial errors that is) so therefore a magazine racing contradiction would exist on both sides of the coin, so it's not exclusive to the FWD. Not to mention all the other normal factors and variances that play into this sort of thing.
You could pull stats from many sources that make an argument favoring either one of the versions, so short of being the guys who engineered and tested the vehicles or extensively racing both version side by side under the same multiple situations and with exact as possible conditions, also being able to account for all other variances such as reaction times, driver weight, cylinder pressure, etc, etc, the only other way to better judge the contest IMO would be to pool all the available info and test/performance statistics and use dedcutive reasoning to infer.
You could drive both back to back and use the seat of the pants feel but we know that a sensation is not conclusive enough to determine much of anything with the different engine characters, weight, and drivetrains especially. We have all been in substantially slower cars that felt faster than either TL model, but is simply not the case so this doesn't count for much.
Being that a majority of the important info distinguishing the two in this context predates back to the pre-MMC models, I'll use that. Let's even look back at the previous generation TLS 5AT to start, which is also the model that I assume Acura based it's acceleration goals for the SH on.
The best performance numbers for the 3G 5AT TLS happened to be in and about the range of 6 sec flat and mid to low 14's. This particular model had a slightly stronger variant of the J35 rated at 286 hp vs this gen's 280 hp and 2 lb-ft torque difference, it also weighed around 50 less compared to a 09-11 base 4G and was more aerodynamic, with the gearing identical otherwise.
So it is no wonder why we see the slight dip in the 5AT 4G FWD's best published numbers, that is expected afterall, and coincidentally, we haven't really seen anything better than low 6's and mid to high 14's for it either. On the other hand, we have seen the 5AT SH just break 5's as well as run mid to low 14's in it's better showings even though it has it's fair share of worse performances but the same is true for the FWD.
The TLS is the particular 2WD version that I would give a slight overall edge to over a comparable SH. Much like the other brands 2WD vs AWD, they have very similar or near exact performance stats when comparing the best times available but I think this version has better roll and top end capabilities in comparison and is also why I feel the 4G models are pretty equal in this regard.
As far as the R&T article quote, a .1 difference is not at all that conclusive and beyond that, it's not like the models were tested side by side. It appears that they simply quoted what they had previously tested independently. It's also worth mentioning that the FWD can be brake torqued to reflect a little better in it's performance stats as opposed to it's regular driving ability when compared to the SH AT which does not allow this.
Ironically, R&T themselves were among some of the testers who achieved one of the best run times for the 5AT SH later on in another comparison, which was 5.9 and 14.4 and 99 mph. Both of their SH tests were done on the HPT model, so that part of it shouldn't account for any of the difference either. TOV's track testing is in line and nearly exact compared to these numbers as well. Despite the brake torquing ability, I still have not seen anything out of a 5AT 4G FWD (or 3G 5AT TLS for that matter) that matches that result even though it is not really that far from it so I wouldn't rule out that it is possible but there just isn't much of a case for it being definitely faster when you look at everything.
I am not claiming to be doing anything better than magazine racing myself but I am trying to substantiate it a bit more than just poiting out whatever stats or data simply makes whatever case. I do not really have a dog in this fight and while it's true I have an AWD, I got the 6MT in small part to avoid this.
What is not being accounted for in the recent points is the shorter final drive of the SH. Yes, there is more weight as well as additional drivetrain losses in the AWD but there is more power, shorter gearing, and there is the traction advantages, while the FWD is lighter, experiences less drivetrain loss, and can be braked torqued a little as opposed to none.
It sounds like most of that would be a total wash and it should be close enough that it can go either way so we can all assume whatever we want and it shouldn't really matter but IMO, I still feel there is enough there to warrant a slight edge to the AWD, as stated earlier. There should be enough power and torque to fully compensate for the weight even after the additional drivetrain losses are accounted for and I could very well be wrong, but I don't think that is the point (not my point anyway), it's really interesting to just get all the info out there and try to draw an appropriate conclusion or educated assumption.
You could pull stats from many sources that make an argument favoring either one of the versions, so short of being the guys who engineered and tested the vehicles or extensively racing both version side by side under the same multiple situations and with exact as possible conditions, also being able to account for all other variances such as reaction times, driver weight, cylinder pressure, etc, etc, the only other way to better judge the contest IMO would be to pool all the available info and test/performance statistics and use dedcutive reasoning to infer.
You could drive both back to back and use the seat of the pants feel but we know that a sensation is not conclusive enough to determine much of anything with the different engine characters, weight, and drivetrains especially. We have all been in substantially slower cars that felt faster than either TL model, but is simply not the case so this doesn't count for much.
Being that a majority of the important info distinguishing the two in this context predates back to the pre-MMC models, I'll use that. Let's even look back at the previous generation TLS 5AT to start, which is also the model that I assume Acura based it's acceleration goals for the SH on.
The best performance numbers for the 3G 5AT TLS happened to be in and about the range of 6 sec flat and mid to low 14's. This particular model had a slightly stronger variant of the J35 rated at 286 hp vs this gen's 280 hp and 2 lb-ft torque difference, it also weighed around 50 less compared to a 09-11 base 4G and was more aerodynamic, with the gearing identical otherwise.
So it is no wonder why we see the slight dip in the 5AT 4G FWD's best published numbers, that is expected afterall, and coincidentally, we haven't really seen anything better than low 6's and mid to high 14's for it either. On the other hand, we have seen the 5AT SH just break 5's as well as run mid to low 14's in it's better showings even though it has it's fair share of worse performances but the same is true for the FWD.
The TLS is the particular 2WD version that I would give a slight overall edge to over a comparable SH. Much like the other brands 2WD vs AWD, they have very similar or near exact performance stats when comparing the best times available but I think this version has better roll and top end capabilities in comparison and is also why I feel the 4G models are pretty equal in this regard.
As far as the R&T article quote, a .1 difference is not at all that conclusive and beyond that, it's not like the models were tested side by side. It appears that they simply quoted what they had previously tested independently. It's also worth mentioning that the FWD can be brake torqued to reflect a little better in it's performance stats as opposed to it's regular driving ability when compared to the SH AT which does not allow this.
Ironically, R&T themselves were among some of the testers who achieved one of the best run times for the 5AT SH later on in another comparison, which was 5.9 and 14.4 and 99 mph. Both of their SH tests were done on the HPT model, so that part of it shouldn't account for any of the difference either. TOV's track testing is in line and nearly exact compared to these numbers as well. Despite the brake torquing ability, I still have not seen anything out of a 5AT 4G FWD (or 3G 5AT TLS for that matter) that matches that result even though it is not really that far from it so I wouldn't rule out that it is possible but there just isn't much of a case for it being definitely faster when you look at everything.
I am not claiming to be doing anything better than magazine racing myself but I am trying to substantiate it a bit more than just poiting out whatever stats or data simply makes whatever case. I do not really have a dog in this fight and while it's true I have an AWD, I got the 6MT in small part to avoid this.
What is not being accounted for in the recent points is the shorter final drive of the SH. Yes, there is more weight as well as additional drivetrain losses in the AWD but there is more power, shorter gearing, and there is the traction advantages, while the FWD is lighter, experiences less drivetrain loss, and can be braked torqued a little as opposed to none.
It sounds like most of that would be a total wash and it should be close enough that it can go either way so we can all assume whatever we want and it shouldn't really matter but IMO, I still feel there is enough there to warrant a slight edge to the AWD, as stated earlier. There should be enough power and torque to fully compensate for the weight even after the additional drivetrain losses are accounted for and I could very well be wrong, but I don't think that is the point (not my point anyway), it's really interesting to just get all the info out there and try to draw an appropriate conclusion or educated assumption.
09-29-2011, 06:27 PM
#56
Or we could wait until a FWD owner shows up, having beaten his freind with an AWD one time and so now we know without flaw which is faster and can finally put the debate to rest.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 09-29-2011 at 06:30 PM.
09-29-2011, 06:41 PM
#57
Intermediate
Who really cares? I bought the awd version for the traction in rain/snow and for handling as I suspect most others did. 0.1 sec difference is not noticeable and most likely not reproducible.
09-29-2011, 09:14 PM
#58
09-29-2011, 10:24 PM
#59
Racer
not stew, he bought it (well, financed it) so he could put the beatdown on those pesky buicks and lincolns that were giving him so much trouble. now he owns (well, finances) a vehicle with superior performance that helps him to dominate that segment. way to go stew!!
09-29-2011, 10:57 PM
#60
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
DEAD WRONG. http://www.zeroto60times.com/Acura-0-60-mph-Times.html
Might want to google your info next time
Some of those times look a little hinky to me. '07/'08 at 7 seconds but the '04 & '05 are low 6 or high 5? Doesn't make sense.
It'd be nice if they linked or listed the origianl sources so we could look 'em up and see if there's anything obvious to account for the anomolies.
Those are actually really good points. In the RL forum there are a couple of dynos and the WHP loss compared to the SAE rating is ~30%. However, for 3G TL dynos (i.e. no SH-AWD) the loss for the 5AT is only ~18%.
Also, "they" say that for every 100 pounds in weight lost, you gain 0.1 sec in the 1/4 mile. 250 pounds ~= 0.25 seconds at the 1/4 mile and that is a lot. That is, for example 14.3 v 14.55. Huge.
Unfortunately there are not very many 4G TL's posted at Dragtimes, but the few that are there don't run very quick (could be a lot of reasons, thats why I wish there we a larger sample).
http://www.dragtimes.com/Acura--TL-D...sort=year-down
09-29-2011, 11:10 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
What if a skinny guy was drivig the AWD and a fat guy driving the FWD? What then?
Relax Stew. It's just a discussion. And mostly opinion, educated guesses, butt-dynos and non-standardized comparisions at that (my post included).
09-30-2011, 12:08 AM
#62
Safety Car
iTrader: (4)
Wow that 4G AWD TL is a friggin tank!! I didnt realize they were so heavy. I guess it makes sense though considering how big the car is. That along with the AWD is gonna be a hefty car.
Just curious....so as a total unbiased opinion what is currently the fastest TL made to date? I know no TL is fast per say, but out of all the models and variations made which one currently holds the record for consistant quickest 1/4 mile times and trap speeds and lowest 0-60?
After finding out how heavy the 4G's are with minimal power over previous generation, does that make the 07/08 Type S 6mt the quickest TL to date?
Just curious....so as a total unbiased opinion what is currently the fastest TL made to date? I know no TL is fast per say, but out of all the models and variations made which one currently holds the record for consistant quickest 1/4 mile times and trap speeds and lowest 0-60?
After finding out how heavy the 4G's are with minimal power over previous generation, does that make the 07/08 Type S 6mt the quickest TL to date?
09-30-2011, 02:52 AM
#63
^The quickest would be the 6MT SH as far as lowest 0-60, fastest 1/4 mile and trap speed. I do think a very strong case can be made for the 3G TLS 6MT being the fastest as far as rolling starts, high speed acceleration, as well as top speed.
FWIW, it's not a particularly small car or that light but in the context of FWD mid size and mid size AWD vehicles, it's weight is appropriate and in some cases, it's on the lighter side.
As a side, according to some 6MT SH dynos, it has at times displayed only a 10% drivetrain loss, which is directly in line with other Honda/Acura FWD 6MT products. It makes a case for SH variant on the TL not actually experiencing much if any additional drivetrain losses or that the engine is underrated. Not sure how much validity there is to either with the inconsistent nature of dyno to dyno comparisons and how difficult it is to dyno the SH in the first place due to it's variable nature but that is some interesting info that's actually out there.
FWIW, it's not a particularly small car or that light but in the context of FWD mid size and mid size AWD vehicles, it's weight is appropriate and in some cases, it's on the lighter side.
As a side, according to some 6MT SH dynos, it has at times displayed only a 10% drivetrain loss, which is directly in line with other Honda/Acura FWD 6MT products. It makes a case for SH variant on the TL not actually experiencing much if any additional drivetrain losses or that the engine is underrated. Not sure how much validity there is to either with the inconsistent nature of dyno to dyno comparisons and how difficult it is to dyno the SH in the first place due to it's variable nature but that is some interesting info that's actually out there.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 09-30-2011 at 02:56 AM.
09-30-2011, 04:13 PM
#64
Safety Car
iTrader: (4)
I wish Acura would build a Type S version on the final year or two of the 4G run. Would be sweet to get a 4G Type S 6mt with advanced package...I'll keep dreamin lol
09-30-2011, 08:13 PM
#65
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
Gotta wait on the 5G now.
09-30-2011, 09:43 PM
#66
Cruisin'
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...tl-sh-awd.html
Seems like a reasonable source for the 0-60 time of the TL. Now the question becomes which is faster, Manual or Auto?
Seems like a reasonable source for the 0-60 time of the TL. Now the question becomes which is faster, Manual or Auto?
Last edited by dave1; 09-30-2011 at 09:48 PM.
09-30-2011, 11:07 PM
#67
Safety Car
iTrader: (4)
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...tl-sh-awd.html
Seems like a reasonable source for the 0-60 time of the TL. Now the question becomes which is faster, Manual or Auto?
Seems like a reasonable source for the 0-60 time of the TL. Now the question becomes which is faster, Manual or Auto?
10-01-2011, 02:00 AM
#68
Edmunds IL is a reliable test result but they are more on the conservative side with numbers that reflect what the average person should be able to replicate consistently and in the real world without having to destroy the car in order to achieve.
The fastest published 4G 6MT was 5.2 and 13.7@102.5 (R&T). The fastest 3G TLS 6MT was 5.5 and 14.1@101 (C&D). These are independent test results and not side by side or comparo type results, both with high performance tires.
The total power bump and additional weight wouldn't make you think much of the 4G but the gearing is a big part of it and it is a disadvantage to the FWD models because there is only so much that 2 front wheels can handle and traction/launching also becomes a problem.
It's also not just about peak power and torque in comparison, it's also the total power band and their characteristics as well, like when the power becomes available and how much there is in comparison throughout.
IMO, an SH is more than enough of a what a typical type S was given it's overall abilities and what it brings to the table over the regular model. Not as much coming from a 5AT 3G TLS to a 5AT 4G SH but that gap has recently grown with the new 6AT SH. I personally never cared what they called it or put as the label, since it serves as the sport distinct model just the same but as far as wanting something even more performance oriented with all the features, you really can't knock that but at that/this point, it might be best to wait for a 5G so they can add even more features and further refine it as well, or at least that if nothing else.
The fastest published 4G 6MT was 5.2 and 13.7@102.5 (R&T). The fastest 3G TLS 6MT was 5.5 and 14.1@101 (C&D). These are independent test results and not side by side or comparo type results, both with high performance tires.
The total power bump and additional weight wouldn't make you think much of the 4G but the gearing is a big part of it and it is a disadvantage to the FWD models because there is only so much that 2 front wheels can handle and traction/launching also becomes a problem.
It's also not just about peak power and torque in comparison, it's also the total power band and their characteristics as well, like when the power becomes available and how much there is in comparison throughout.
IMO, an SH is more than enough of a what a typical type S was given it's overall abilities and what it brings to the table over the regular model. Not as much coming from a 5AT 3G TLS to a 5AT 4G SH but that gap has recently grown with the new 6AT SH. I personally never cared what they called it or put as the label, since it serves as the sport distinct model just the same but as far as wanting something even more performance oriented with all the features, you really can't knock that but at that/this point, it might be best to wait for a 5G so they can add even more features and further refine it as well, or at least that if nothing else.
10-03-2011, 07:32 AM
#70
I drive an 07 TL-S 5AT and an 09 SH-AWD back to back all the time. The AWD car is DECEPTIVELY quick.
When you're winding out the 3G, you can tell you're on it, and it feels like a fast Honda should feel. Front pull, torque steer, loud revs.
The AWD car, you stomp it, and then have to double take when you look down at the speedo when you come up on that shift from 2nd to 3rd quickly going, holy crap, how am I going that fast already.
I think the 3G would probably take the AWD car from 60-100 if you lined em both up in 3rd gear and told them to go, but not by much - and you'd only see it pull away after about 80-85.
When you're winding out the 3G, you can tell you're on it, and it feels like a fast Honda should feel. Front pull, torque steer, loud revs.
The AWD car, you stomp it, and then have to double take when you look down at the speedo when you come up on that shift from 2nd to 3rd quickly going, holy crap, how am I going that fast already.
I think the 3G would probably take the AWD car from 60-100 if you lined em both up in 3rd gear and told them to go, but not by much - and you'd only see it pull away after about 80-85.
10-03-2011, 08:26 AM
#71
Three Wheelin'
I've owned both as well. I think the FWD has a slight delay when accelerating from a stop as the car does some sort torque steer management routine. perhaps limiting power or breaking one wheel.
The AWD feels nicer and more immediate as the car is immediately engaged, no torque steer.
If weight shifts to the rear who cares when the rear wheels are also pushing? its easy to squeel tires on the FWD thus wasting energy. I believe the AWD is more effective putting power down to the road.
Anyhow if there is curve or corner involved the AWD will blow the FWD out of the water.
The AWD feels nicer and more immediate as the car is immediately engaged, no torque steer.
If weight shifts to the rear who cares when the rear wheels are also pushing? its easy to squeel tires on the FWD thus wasting energy. I believe the AWD is more effective putting power down to the road.
Anyhow if there is curve or corner involved the AWD will blow the FWD out of the water.
10-03-2011, 08:28 AM
#72
Three Wheelin'
Prior to 2012 I would agree because the manual has another gear. But I think most of the reason the tests of manuals is faster is simply that with AWD you can use the clutch to bring up the revs a lot higher when feeding in the clutch. Once rolling I wouldn't expect much difference - maybe slight, but not much.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
nanos
Car Parts for Sale
26
11-12-2015 08:41 PM
