g37guy01

Low end torque is always better than no low end torque.

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+more+is+better+commercial

BEAR-AvHistory

It was taped. There is nothing special about any of these cars they are all point & shoot. Whack the gas & run the clocks.

Actually the times are what you would expect after seeing some of these cars in real life at the strip. Go to the race section here in Acurazine & try to find a pure stock TL that can come anywhere near the C&D 5 second times that are so dearly loved here. FBO are having trouble making times equal to those tests.

The 328 is 3360lbs & BMW lists its 0-60 @ 5.7/5.8 The TL is listed depending on equipment at 3777lbs

Edward'TLS

The importance of low-end torque is particularly apparent for automatic tranny equipped cars during overtaking, when they are cruising along at highway speed in 6th gear @ a lowly 1K-2K rpm.

When the driver needs to do an overtaking maneuver, he meshes the gas pedal to the floor :

For the auto tranny car with lots of low-end torque, the car accelerates instantly since maximum torque is always on tap at the 1K-2K rpm band.

For the auto tranny car with little low-end torque (max torque is up high at 5K rpm), nothing happens until the tranny downshifts a gear or two in order to jack up the rpm for maximum torque output. By the time, the car starts accelerating, the lots-of-low-end-torque car is already way ahead in front.

This is no allusions.

probmxstyle

A pure stock 12 SH-AWD Advance package ran 5.98 0-60. This was with a driver not used to the car, so after some practice, I can see that number dropping. Additionally, if the car is equipped with the 6mt, that number will drop drastically. I can see a 5.4 or 5.5 0-60 within reach.

BEAR-AvHistory

Where was this timed? Vbox?

http://www.dragtimes.com/Acura--TL-Drag-Racing.html

probmxstyle

Timed with a just calibrated Gtech Pro. Also, here are some other numbers:
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Acura-0-60-mph-Times.html

Specifically, the 6mt time:
2010 Acura TL SH-AWD (manual) 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.7

winstrolvtec

Perhaps it was being refered to as an allusion when two cars are otherwise almost identical as far as acceleration performance or the low end torque car is slower overall yet it feels faster because more torque is present sooner and often times for a larger span.

BEAR-AvHistory

They are all taken right from the magazines tests & not seen in real life, also would not run a getec pro against a Vbox for accurate timing.

If the 5.2/13.7 was accurate why do the TL's all do so poorly at the track when compared to published numbers?

Best SH AWD listed at Drag Times is 14.4seconds X 99mph, 14.6 seconds X 96mph & 14.8 seconds X 96mph. There are no low 5 second 0-60 in that group

JM2010 SH-AWD

Everybody knows this is not possible "in the real world." Seriously, this is a time that has been replicated (exactly) by C&D and R&T. Others have clocked slightly slower times with the same car (e.g., 5.3, 5.4, 5.5). Most of us wouldn't drive our cars the way one must to get the quickest of these times, but the point is that these test drivers test all MT cars by doing relatively high RPM clutch dumps. The times, in other words, are apples to apples with other cars tested by these mags. I know some on the forum refuse to accept this, but as we say in my biz, it is what it is.

g37guy01

We also say if it seems too good to be true... Unless you can replicate it with your car, these times are irrelevant to all.

probmxstyle

Who knows who reported those number to drag times. No one knows the conditions the car was tested in or the drivers skill. Also, all of them being 2009's, its possible that its the same car and driver. You can't base your numbers off that.

I will say this, I came from a 2003 Tl Type-s. This car has a well documented 1/4 time of about 14.6-14.8 and a 0-60 of about 6.1. My 2012 is much faster than that car.

George Knighton

Considering how old the 4G design is now, I'm surprised it came in 3rd.

If they had a way to factor into the equation quantifiable metrics related to reliability, the TL would be 1st.

It's far more reliable than either the Volvo or BMW.

But, considering how subjective these things can be, I'm surprised the 4G TL was even 3rd.

Acura are a little behind the game with what an "automatic" transmission is supposed to be. Acura fans consider it a minor miracle that we have a 6 speed automatic now, but much of the competition has been on automated 7 and 8 speed manuals for a couple of years now.

George Knighton

The flexibility of the J Motor and its wide torque band can make you feel very comfortable, and make you feel you have lots of power at all times, even if you're in one of the older 5 speed automatics.

I'll say, though, that it's not all that hard for this particular old man to get a 13.8 out of a 6-6, and that is just with basic summer tires, not some kind of R or A comp.

I'm usually on the OEM all season Michelins (second set of them!) and I feel just fine with them. The tire wholesaler that sells to the Acura dealers around here is somebody who goes to the track very often, and he's the one who talked me into buying the OEM all seasons again for regular road use.

Expensive, and not ultimately the best performing, but the car feels great with them and he claims that the replacements that appear to perform better in one way or another end up causing more problems than they solve.

He's an old hand at Acura racing, too, which is interesting. You'll still see him at tracks on the East Coast every once in a while, and he'll show up at ITR Expo on occasion.

Sorry. Got off track there.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the 6-6 puts the HP down well enough for a 13.8, even when driven by this dumb old man.

George Knighton

Oh, I dunno.

I'd say 5.5 might be doable for the majority of us on a moderately warm day on the OEM summer tires.

The 1-2 shift is the most annoying, and non-Honda people will have trouble getting off the gater spring from 2-3.

If you're a Honda person, you'll be used to the 2-3 shift that's the same on every one of our cars, but 1-2 on a high powered J Motor is a little annoying.

But that's just one dumb old man's opinion, of course.

winstrolvtec

What is your sample size though? 3 5AT's speaks for all of the 6MT or 6AT's? Exactly how many 6AT's and 6MT's are even listed at dragtimes? How many of those times actually come from a magazine source anyway?

There are 3 09 SH's (5AT) and that's it. No 6AT or 6MT. One of those, I can confirm, comes from a magazine. Wouldn't be surprised if that is the case for the other two as well. There is maybe 30 TL's listed at dragtimes for the last 3 generations so we're not getting much but of course it seems to fit the views of some so it must be adequate enough.

The thing is the TL or "car" doesn't really do anything by itself, it's also driver related, especially in 6MT. There is also a whole host of variables and conditions that factor into it where a limited sample size might not highlight all of the high as well as low and mid capabilities.

And the one or two runs over at the racing forum doesn't conclude much either. Don't know what is so sacred about dragtimes, I could secretly juice my car, head up to the track and post a fast time over at dragtimes and claim it was stock and just because it was at dragtimes, that would suffice?

One or two runs over at the racing forum by novices or first timers with that particular vehicle doesn't suffice much either.

Safe to say that it is a bit inconclusive as to what the car can run and depending on what setting. I would leave it at that, nothing more nothing less, but that's just me.

Agree, except for, what defines or suggests the TL time is "too good" in this instance?

BEAR-AvHistory

C&D 2012 TL AWD

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.4 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 sec
Standing Ľ-mile: 14.7 sec @ 98 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 125 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 178 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g

Car & Driver 4 car test 6/2009
0-60 6.6
1/4 mile 15.1Seconds 95mph

& your sample base was missing this?

winstrolvtec

^Could you not also find low or lower end of spectrum times for all cars, and make the same argument, or is it just the TL?

Ironic that the magazine is no good when it's a more favorable time but when it's one that is worse off, it's more than serviceable.

The sample base also includes better times and that is the point, you should take it all into consideration, and not cherry pick to conclusion.

BEAR-AvHistory

^^^^^
Excuse me but its just a few samples from the same magazine, C&D, like the 5.2/13.8 everybody here always pulls out to prove how quick the car is. I think however the Drag Times listings you don't think are all that good look pretty similar to the slower C&D times that no one else ever posts here in the interest of balance.

Bottom line is the car is not quick, which is not bad in itself, because its pretty large & heavy for its available power. A lot of people seem to want to hang onto a best test no one in this forum has or can match & totally ignore slower tests from the samr publication.

Why do some guys, who do not race anyway, want to hang onto the best magazine numbers ever posted when logic & there own cars say its not so?

George Knighton

5.2 to 60 is some damned perfect shifting...better shifting than I think I could ever manage.

The OEM summer Michelin are pretty good for launching. 5.6 and 13.8 is attainable by even older drivers like me...I'd think a younger person into drag racing should be able to do the same thing.

I think.

Wouldn't a 5.2 to 60 normally indicate a 1/4 a little better than 13.7?

George Knighton

Oh, I dunno. Some of us have been pretty close to it.

Don't you really and truly already know the answer to that? If you own something, then you must prove you've made the best decision no matter what.

Lemme tell you something, though....

Forget the drag times.

Go to VIR with your big SH-AWD 6-6 TL and take a turn in Group 3 or Group 4.

Stay with somebody's BMW through the Uphill Esses, side by side through South Bend (dangerous...that's where Keinubing went wrong), race downhill to Oak Tree...

...and then pull straight away from him when you realize your SH-AWD has moved the power to the back left wheel and you've shot out of the corner at a surprising quickness.

These are really not race cars by any stretch of the imagination. You can wear the brakes out pretty easily and even on competition pads and good brake fluid you'll still be able to outperform the braking system.

But for the size of the vehicle, and especially considering the cost of the vehicle, you really cannot complain about this big thing's performance.

EDIT: I see you're in North Carolina. Think about visiting with one of the groups that frequent VIR. Your car will surprise you, and you'll learn a lot more about your car...and yourself.

George Knighton

It's just a best buy in its class, IMHO, even after all this time.

Don't let it escape your attention that it came out ahead of that new Cadillac that everybody thinks is so hot.

Can't wait to see how the RLX SH-AWD and TLX SH-AWD improve on it.

g37guy01

Or go to nurburgring for another aspect of how the car performs. Would be interesting to see the lap times out of nurburgring vs the competition.

winstrolvtec

But why is it that you choose to accept one set of numbers over another? You're chosing your own facts and "logic". If those numbers suggest logic than the other numbers must do the same, so which one is it?

Why not simply suggest the car the could do anything from the best recorded time to the worst? I only pointed out that the 6AT is a bit inconclusive and the 5AT has had a drastic range of results, nothing more, nothing less, no ignoring of anything. There is also a very limited sampling, it's not like 100 TL's went up to the track all experienced and no one got close to the numbers, again there is 30 some examples at dragtimes for three generations of TL's, no 6AT, no 6MT, doesn't say much.

Also, dragtimes has only 3 09 SH examples, that's it, 3. I'm pretty sure they all actually come from a magazine source, not a real track run, check the source, it's unavailable and coincindentally matches the same results from major publictions at the time.

However, a real track run was documented at TOV and if memory serves me correctly the 5AT ran a 14.3 or 14.4 or 98 or 99 mph, and 0-60 in about 6 flat but you won't accept this # probably because you don't like it but if you can pick and choose so can I or anyone else for that matter.

Not particularly fast, no, and no one is arguing anything otherwise, not the point. As far as the manual, it would probably be a bit more difficult to replicate that 5.2 and 13.7, no doubt, but that doesn't suggest the car is totally uncapable of it and that is really no different than any other manual, don't know why this rule only applies to the TL?

Anytime a discussion takes place over a car's performance capabilities, the best runs are always quoted everywhere, no different than the racing forum you participate in regularly, there is always a slower and faster set of numbers. If you choose to acknowledge the lower set than you must also do so for the higher set, same for other vehicles, especially if in comparison.

You even said yourself that when a 6AT member ran an average time recently, the last time we had this discussion, that he had more room for improvement, talk about a contradiction. The fact is the traps and 5-60 measures (which are must more consistent and indicative) are there to suggest that the best TL numbers are possible, no one said how easily.

HeartTLs

iTrader: (5)

I hate that every thread based on an article that includes the 4G turns into a debate over 4G 0-60 capability posted numbers. Who gives a fuck? You have a 4G? Great. You don't? Great. You think the car is fast? Great. You think it's slow? Great. One set of facts are more important than others? That's great.

This thread should be moved to ramblings, since 80% of the post are reworded comments that have been posted in other threads.

Mods, please move this.

Booya4139

well said.

I shake my head reading pissing contests about the 0-60 of a 4000lb cruising sedan...

BEAR-AvHistory

All someone has to do is post their actual track time of 13.7 & 100+ & all will be well with this debate. If I go back through this sites racing pages, years of various time slips etc. do not support the best C&D numbers.

Have no problem with TOV's numbers but 6.0 is a long long way from 5.2. 8/10 of a second & a few miles an hour often get written off as no big deal & I guess its not unless you are trying to make up that spread & dumping a few thousand dollars into your TL to do it like the FBO TL guys have done with only a very very few picking up their performance to what some claim the stock cars to be.

BTW C&D also posted 5.1 numbers for the 3G TL & no one with a stock car including my few goes got close to that one either.

Remember all the postings about how bad the stupid C&D drivers were with the mid 14+ times with the 4G? Interesting how they suddenly got to be the word of the speed god when you like the numbers

About VIR our NC BMW club goes quite a bit. Our local BMW indie has a few instructors on staff. Not interested prepping either of the cars for hard runs at VIR, much nicer using BMW's M3’s at their performance school in SC.

Am happy to do an occasion run at Rockingham in normal street trim to see where a car is at but weekend road racing is now a "back in the day" thing with past Morgan+4SS, Triumph TR3A/B & 283 Corvette’s. Smile

winstrolvtec

And the fact that you have not seen one yet does not automatically mean the car can't do it. How many 4G 6MT's do you think there are? How many do you think actually visited a track with it and ran enough times or driven hard enough to achieve?

Furthermore, just how many 6MT runs have you seen that don't support this? Can you validate that number? I know I have only seen about 2 and then some publications that were not far off, others in line.

I do not think 5.9-6.0 is a long way from 5.2 when you consider the transmission difference, a 5AT (nevermind 6AT) vs 6MT, actually being able to launch the car (4k rpm drop is doable), and the superior launching ability and traction bonus that AWD generates just in general.

Typically Hondas have always maintained about a .5 difference between their AT's and 6MT's, especially since they have been so late to adopt a 6AT, where it probably can split that difference depending on the application. It sounds like I'm speaking logically, I don't know, you tell me.

There really isn't much by way of modding a 4G, whatever extent there is, one could argue just makes noise and could actually hurt performance. It's not like you're dialing in hp, it's an NA motor. Even adding FI would be limited and not worth the cost if not totally worked up for it.

I think you have it a bit wrong. No one in their right mind would argue that a mid 14 time of a 4G auto is totally off the mark. People complained about the 14.8 and 15.1 when others easily achieved better, even C&D themselves at another time, also how they then commented about "full on brake torquing" when the 5AT simply does not, fact. Then that they deemed the 6AT as notably faster than the 5AT despite their recorded time of 14.8, when they did better with the 5AT. That raises flags for any car, not TL exclusive.

As far as quoting C&D, it's no different then you when you equally don't like the number or like it, that doesn't necessarily make either of us right or wrong and certainly neither any better for it, and that's my whole point.

BTW, I have never seen a 5.1 for the 3G, just to show that I'm not approaching this with any bias, IMO that's total BS as far as the car's ability, I had two of them, one even A-spec, never happen stock, I can speak confidentally that it doesn't exist but will stand corrected if you can show me from the actual source.

George Knighton

I understand completely. :-) But...maybe just one time with the VIR Club, just so you see what SH-AWD does. You're not going to get any lap time records or anything, but, still, it's a surprisingly capable car for its size.

Those damned brakes, though. LOL.... Driven 9/10 or 10/10, you just need better brakes. You'll hit the limiter on both the front straight and the back straight...you just need better brakes IMHO.

But just once or twice so you see what the car can do...it's great.

Understand this, too.

I'm starting to get too dizzy too quickly at tracks like Mid Ohio and VIR. :-(

My best track days are behind me, I fear.