Can someone explain how this is possible? (Data from Road & Track)

09 RL 4085 lbs 3.7L 300hp 271 lb-ft
0-60: 6.2 sec 0-100: 15.3 1/4: 14.7@97.8

09 TL SHAWD 3955 lbs 3.7 305hp 275 lb-ft
0-60: 6.3 sec 0-100: 15.7 1/4: 14.8@96.7

The TL weighs LESS by over 100 lbs, has 5 more hp and 4 more lb-ft of torque and is significantly SLOWER????????????? Granted they were tested on different days... but the TL was tested in Jan and the RL in May... so i would think that the colder air in January would benefit the TL.



The mediocre performance of the new TL is making me look elsewhere when my lease is up in Feb '10

The 09 A4 3.2 quattro has 40 hp less, 32 lb-ft less, and only weighs 140 lbs less than the TL SHAWD --- yet is faster to 60 (5.9), 100 (15.3) AND the 1/4 (14.4@97.5) Maybe it's the extra gear??? WTF?

Even the 211hp 2.0T in the A4 is about as quick.

Do you think it's a bad gearbox?????

 

Maybe, b/c thier was diff drivers for each car, 1 didnt launch as good, the colder days means less traction, even for sh-awd kinda. And magazine racing is stupid, most of the times the times are off. The TL is faster then the RL fact.

 

If you looking for straight line performance, what are you doing looking at a TL or an A4?

Get a 335i, IS350, or a G37 and call it a day.

 

not really looking for straightline performance... it's a valid comparison to wonder about how the RL is quicker.

as far as the BMW goes... a comp equipped 335xi is $55320.00 THAT's a 12k more.

the lexus IS350 is from a farty old man's company... it's a beautiful car, but definitely farty... more luxury than performance (other than straightline), and it's not a fair comparo b/c it's RWD only.

the g37 is a great car.. my other car IS the 08 g35x Sport... I love it. but the voice activation BLOWS!! you cant do shit with it and you cant do most stuff while ur driving. that's the only BOOOO the car gets. plus, it's obvious why that car is faster- it's a lot lighter, has more hp, and a better tranny (more gears)

 

from another post here on the forum: "So despite carrying an additional 100 lb., quicker shifts and more power carry the day with a 5.9-sec. 0–60 dash and a 14.4-sec. clocking through the quarter mile (curiously, each a full 0.4 sec. quicker than in our single-car test of the TL, January 2009)." https://acurazine.com/forums/4g-tl-2009-2014-123/hideous-beast-finaly-wins-msm-comparo-728987/

 

i have seen various different times from different publications... i figured it would be a better comparo to compare from the same mag...
i'm assuming that they tested both cars in the same way.

as far as the 5.9 being the best posted time from a cred magazine source... i still feel that 5.9 seconds is a little pokey considering the car is marketed as "the most powerful acura yet"

the TL SH-AWD's competition posts times in the low 5s and most of the mags get times in the low to mid 6s for the TL awd... you would think that 305 hp would be enuf to launch the car more swiftly... maybe the 6sp manual will post much better numbers.

maybe it's the TLs hideous face that is making it so slow? it's the beak! lol

 

I think the answer is that all of the tests done by the magazines have a significant amount of error and should not be considered infallible. There is no reason that the RL should be faster than the TL SH-AWD. As was posted multiple times in this forum, R&T recently recorded 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for the TL SH-AWD that were 0.4 sec lower than those recorded in an earlier test.

 

Edmunds Inside Line has RL at 7.2 seconds 0-60 and 15.3 seconds at 92.8mph in a quarter mile. So it has to be operator error most likely by R&T. I have never put any credence when it comes to spec sheet by R&T magazine.

 

The SH in it's prime is good for low 14's and sub 6 sec, the 6MT will be out soon if you need a little more. The magazine work is getting sloppier by the day, look at only the best times when comparing.

 

well...here's my



That is the best time I recorded with my RL.

I have also had a few runs in the very low 6's.

Then, one day I went down to the pier with Blazing GT and we decided to run our cars again.

I ended up running a 7.67s. Something I have never seen my car run.

I thought something was wrong with my car, same day, off that pier on regular street it was running 6's again with a passenger.

So...what I took away from that was that unless you are running 2 cars against each other side by side the results are not comparable to anything 2 minutes later or years later.

 

If you're so bummed-out by the 0-60 numbers, get something else. No need to continually bash the TL for what it isn't. Get a quicker car and be on your merry way.

 

Agree with Pete. In real-world driving the TL has plenty of get-up-and-go, stops where I want it too, merges onto entrance ramps with power to spare. The only time 0-60 times seem to be important is when some punk in a riced out 3G or a G35/37 wants to show off at a traffic light. If I wanted to blast off of the light, I would have gotten a Pontiac G8, but then again I want my daily driver to be there in the end. If I want to race, I'll take it to a track.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

hahah dude, you're in the TL land. You can't have negativity toward TL, the only thing you can is the TL mask.

 

I have to agree, I think it's strange to get a car based mainly on the 0-60 number. Get an American muscle car with a V8. In most real world driving a car with over 200hp is more than anyone needs.

 

+1

 

ok, apparently my post is being met with misunderstanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, but USUALLY the successor to the previous model improves on the performance and technology. It seems with the 4G TL, they did a great job on the tech...

Here's my issue... 1) why advertise the car as the "most powerful acura ever built" when it's just a horsepower # and nothing else? 2)you would think that since the car has a lot more HP than the 3G, that it would at LEAST keep up with the TL-S? and 3) we all know that the 4G look is very "love it or hate it" so, what WERE they thinking?

Let it be known that I'm not a TL hater... I have had 2, yes 2 an 04 and my current 07 TL-S.

The reason for my posts are to ask questions, ask advise, and comment on how disappointed I am... because I would have liked to have continued with the Acura brand since I think they are great.

However, that being said... the 4G has a hideous face (the schnoz), a Saturn Aura-copied ass, is like a half second slower than my TL-S, and is no longer a value at $43000.00

It seems to me, that Acura is trying to change their demographic buyer for the TL... the base model looks "farty" like an old man's car (hence the reason i see 50-60 year olds driving them) and the SH-AWD is now commanding over 40k... (and I have YET to see one on Long Island btw...)

those are MY 2 cents. (2 cents that I'm entitled to give like the rest of you)

 

Hey sonny. Just one cotton pickin' second there. I'm 60 and I love fine cars. And I love to drive them fast and I'm one awesome driver too. Just so you should be aware, not all 60 year olds are "old farts" who drive Sedan De Ville's or Lincoln Town cars.

Now go change your diaper.
;-)

 

and the SH-AWD is now commanding over 40k...


you should look at the owners sign in, i paid 37 and change for my SH-AWD with tech, black on black.

 

you should check the owner's sign in, i got my TL SH-AWD black on black for 37 and change.

 

The TL SH-AWD is selling in the $37-$38k range, so it is considerably cheaper than you thought. As for the rest of the post, you clearly dislike the design of the 4G TL, which is fine. However, what is the purpose of your questions? Is someone on this forum going to redesign the car for you? If you can't stand the TL, you should be looking at the A4, 3 series, and G37 when your lease ends.

 

Got to agree. I'm an old fart but drove a dragster up to 2 years ago, but the new TL is definitely off my list as the styling is terrible. Even at the NY auto show people were negative about the new design. The word sporty can't be used in the same sentence with the TL. I guess it a love it or hate it type of vehicle.

Another question about fuel mileage:
RL 16/22
TL SH-AWD 17/25
Why so much difference in the fuel mileage as the ratios are the same and only a minimal difference in weight?

There is a 100 RPM lower redline on the SH-AWD compared to the TL and RL?? 6700/6800

 

They've improved the tech, and the new car will be faster than the outgoing TL around a track (not drag strip). Why did you initially compare it to the RL if you really meant is should be improving on the previous model TL?

Why not? It is the most powerful ever? Did they misrepresent this fact? Did they say it's the fastest ever?

Your purpose appears to be "comment on how disappointed I am..." There is little "asking for advice" in this post

Of course you are, but don't hide a "soapbox post" within a (seemingly) innocent question post.

 

Good catch. A quick look at the spec sheets shows a secondary final drive for the RL. Personally I have no idea what that is. (anyone?) Perhaps the RL's planetary AWD overdrive system is more inefficient than the fixed ratio setup in the TL?

 

Maybe the RL has more aggressive computer mapping for fuel, air, timing etc., hence slightly quicker and less fuel mileage.

 

Colin, Thank you for posting exactly what I was thinking. I was just too damn lazy.

 

Anyone who pays over $40k for the SH-AWD has to be in a big hurry. I got mine last month for $37,500 before tax, and it took me under half an hour to negotiate that. I suppose I was helped by my local dealer having 100 TLs in stock (including 10 SH-AWDs) but from what I hear, I got a fairly typical price.

 

I agree with many of the above posts:

I knew my 2k4 TL was not the fastest car to be had for the money, but it drove in a very unique way that was suited to me needs and tastes for the money, and that's what sold me on it initially (when I bought the TL-S in 2k2, then grandfathered into the 2k4 TL after lemon-ing my 2k2).

The BT, the sound system, the ergonomics in the 2k4 TL were I think ahead of its time and really made it a comfortable car to drive. I needed a bit of a sport edge so I added the Aspec kit -- loved it.

If the TL weren't as unattractive as I think it is (current generation) I would have strongly considered it over my G37xS that's just a straightline beast compared to the TL .. and I REALLY enjoyed driving and sitting inside the 4G TL when i had the tech TL as a loaner..

If ya want straightline speed -- why not just get an Evo or WRX STi?

 

Those cars handle very well too. Both those cars pull close to a g on the skid pad.