012TL-GLM

The mags can post whatever they want, but I dont buy it. Car and driver also claims the avalon does 0-60 in 6.6. I had one, and my tl destroys it.

BEAR-AvHistory

What do you believe & what accepted set of facts is it based on. Drag Times has the top 3 4G’s @ 14.4/14.6 & 14.8 all of which which C&D beat. The top 3 speeds were 99.1/96/96.7 again slower then the C&D speed of 101mph.

BTW Bearcat from the 3G forum is listed just in front of the fastest 4G @ 14.3/97. Drag Times listed by ET not MPH

C&D is wonderful here when you guys like the number; Saturno V & winstrolvtec have quoted them quite a few times in this thread.

Like the mags or not there are only a few sources of non-fan based numbers. Been involved in racing since spring1960 & its very seldom that fan claims have be proven as fact on the track. For some strange reason most of the cars in various fan claims turnout to be slower & not as quick as described.

But hey, their transmission was slipping that day.

Its the major reason why I have never claimed a time/speed for the 335is....it has not been to the track (closed for winter) yet, but clones have data so I have a good idea what it will do. Can't use C&D data because its no longer stock.

saturno_v

I do not have any problems with their numbers, I think/hope they are rigorous in measuring performance regardless of the brand...and I have no problems admitting the the automatic TL is a bit slow, including the new 6 speed auto in 2012 (as you know I drive the manual)

My issue with the mags is often in their rationale for comparos and their final ranking (which they admit has a lot of subjectivity in it)...the most egregious example is the C&D comparo between the GT-R and the M3 where they put the Bimmer ahead.....no sane and rational car entusiast would do that by a mile and the two cars are not really comparable anyway...

winstrolvtec

You would even have to agree that those numbers represent a very large discrepancy for a 6AT to 6MT counterpart. Even the 09 SH 5AT ran a 6.5 5-60 in another C&D test. Yes, it's negligent, pretty much the same but it should be better especially given their comments. It could again very well be the tire downgrade but I just want to point out there being something a miss relative to other findings.

The real number is street start as well as trap speed. 5-60 is only around half of the relative acceleration, trap speeds supplements for how a car might do for mid range mph and up, as opposed to low end to mid (5-60). It's entirely possible and very common for a car to have better 5-60 stats than another vehicle but also only trap about the same. There is still a lot of acceleration not accounted for in 5-60 by itself.

For reasons both you and I agree on, I also don't like trap as much as the 5-60 but it is the next best number in terms of consistency and having everyday driving value but, like you said, it does not remove driver and launching abilities nearly as much, especially when combined with the 1ft roll which out comes into play for traps and all of that can still affect the outcome of the trap speed.

For example, a 99 mph trap for a car that does not launch, brake torque, etc is not necessarily a slower car in terms of everyday driving than one that traps 100 mph, maybe even 101 mph but can be lauched or more effectively anyway.

As far as the best 4G numbers, the 6MT has actually tested at 5.2 0-60, 13.7@102.3 mph from a R&T comparo, to make matters worse. I also don't buy a 5.2 for any 3G 6MT, stock that is.

I also agree that there is little to no evidence online of a 4G 6MT doing that but I don't think an absence of evidence, is evidence of absence, meaning that doesn't prove it can but it doesn't not prove it can't either. At least R&T does have it's numbers and C&D theirs. Also it doesn't take too much to infer that it is enitrely possible from TOV's 5AT SH at 14.3@99 which was done at an actual track and also given the very large and maybe even suspicious difference in 5-60 street starts of the 5AT and 6AT to 6MT.

And there is at least a single video on youtube or floating around the racing and competition section of the 3G's running as well as magazine times and at actual tracks, some better if I am not mistaken and stock too.

saturno_v

Comparing the ride between a regular Taurus or MKZ to an SHO is like comparing the ride of a regular Impreza to a WRX STI....

If you think the Taurus has the same level of fit and finish of a TL, I agree that we are a world apart in our opinion...

And when I did mention the road feel, I imply from a driver perspective....the Taurus SHO may be a bit more comfortable and floaty than a TL but that is not what I'm looking for in a sport sedan...

winstrolvtec

Drag times data is of all 5AT's, no 6MT's that you are arguing against and they all fall within an acceptable range of the data here. JP Bearcat's 3G 5AT TLS was faster by .036 in ET and slower by almost 2 mph in the trap than the 4G 5AT SH you are comparing it to.

The thing about arguments for or against the magazines and data is, it can be considered the same for everyone. When someone doesn't like a time the opposing argument is that those are reputable magazines and have very advanced equipment, etc, etc but when the TL SH 6MT runs an excellent time of 5.2 or 13.7, the argument shifts to it supposedly hasn't done it at a track or as far as I can tell. So please don't act as if you are any better.

The discrepancy of the SH 5AT times is well documented in black and white and there is only one official test of the 6AT to go off of and it does present possible evidence that it is a little low based on the 5AT info and that it even contradicts itself. When it comes to the 6MT SH, your argument is that you haven't seen it and in a method that you prefer or of your choice.

saturno_v

All the other 3 major magazines in addition to C&D (Motortrend, Road & Track and Edmunds Inside Line) cracked below 14 sec. testing the manual TL, both the 2010-2011 models and the new redesigned 2012

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/specs.html

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...5eadd8a095.pdf

http://www.insideline.com/acura/tl/2...full-test.html

Road & Track own test confirmed that the TL was faster on their track than the 335i. (the tires may have contributed to that)

BEAR-AvHistory

I don't worry about trap speed all that much because it can vary a few MPH either way run to run depending quite a bit on the 60ft time & at this level is not that material. Most street cars except for very fast 11-12 second ET's will only gain 21-23MPH over the second 1/8th mile in a drag race.

The faster cars will gain 25-30MPH. So a car trapping 126mph is already at about 100mph at the 1/8 mile. A car in the Acura range making maybe 78-80 in the 1/8th will just break 100mph

This is why I like the 5-60 times as a real world measure. On the C&D info a few tenths one way or another is to be expected & generally they try to show the best they can.

Anyone bracket racing will add time to their dial in in the afternoon as it get warmer from the morning time trial results. If the results can vary same car, same track, same day they will certainly vary day by day season by season. Thing is the numbers represent what the car did that one time.

Other tests should fall in a range but again putting an absolute on a 6.5 vs. a 6.6 most likely does not mean much. That being said a big spread in 5-60 should be suspect, there will still be a spread but 1.0 is suspect.

I was not making an absolute comparison on the C&D times vs. anything other then to say they are typically better then what you see at the track posted by fans.

It was a comment in response to 012TL-GLM that the magazine writers are clueless for not getting the times he wants to see. IIRC one of C&D testers in the past had a number of Indy 500 starts & a good chunk are active sports car racers. Most forum guys on the other hand are readers.

The reason I am not all that happy with the 5.1/13.7 is the fact that it is so much an outlier. Even guys who are running FBO modified TL typeS 6MT’s are not even close to those numbers, check the racing sub form. I also have a problem believing the 4G is faster/quicker then a supercharged 3G.

Just to throw more into the mix this is what Edmonds got out of a 2012 SH AWD 6MT

Test Results:

Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 2.1 (2.4 with T/C on)
0-45 (sec): 3.7 (4.3 with T/C on)
0-60 (sec): 5.7 (6.3 with T/C on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 5.4 (6.0 with T/C on)
0-75 (sec): 8.3 (9.1 with T/C on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 14.0 @ 99.0 (14.5 @ 97.2 with T/C on)

Braking
30-0 (ft): 29
60-0 (ft): 120

Handling
Slalom (mph): 64.6 (63.8 with T/C ON)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.87 (0.79 with T/C on)

BEAR-AvHistory

You have to give them credit where credit is due. At low speeds they are all pretty equal.

Might have been better though if they ran the whole track instead of a short 1.1 mile version, but I guess they wanted to keep the cars bunched for excitement.

Noticed when the did the big boys - Audi R8, BMW M3, Corvette Z06, 911 Turbo - comparo they did run the whole track.

But since I have about 100 more wheel horsepower then a 335i I don't have a dog in that fight either.

saturno_v

When Edmunds tested the manual 2012 TL??

I did look on their Inside Line website but I have not found this test, can you post the link??...The 2010 6MT test is here:

http://www.insideline.com/acura/tl/2...full-test.html

It did record better results than your post, (it was equipped with performance summer tires).

saturno_v

BEAR-avhistory


The major 4 magazines (C&D, R&T, MT and Edmunds) in their test of the manual 4G TL (some with performance tires, some with all season) got a 0-60 time between 5.2 and 5,6 and 1/4 mile between 13.7 and 13.9...it seems pretty consistent to me...

An interesting note....the 2010 SHO with performance tires pulled almost the same lateral acceleration of my 2002 Nissan Maxima (with all season and narrower rubber)......

BEAR-AvHistory

You keep posting 2010 after 2010 numbers when the others here are saying lets do 2012.

SO lets do 2012, it was Edmunds Inside Line sites 2012 6MT test..Did you think I made the numbers up?

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...tl-sh-awd.html

Current C&D 2012 6AT - Is the 6AT all that much slower then the 6MT? My 7DCT is faster based on both factory numbers & magazine numbers then the 6MT

Edmunds 6MT TEST RESULTS
0-30 (sec): 2.1 (2.4 with T/C on)
0-45 (sec): 3.7 (4.3 with T/C on)
0-60 (sec): 5.7 (6.3 with T/C on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 5.4 (6.0 with T/C on)
0-75 (sec): 8.3 (9.1 with T/C on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 14.0 @ 99.0 (14.5 @ 97.2 with T/C on)

C/D 6AT 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 ¼-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

The C&D test said quite clearly the 6MT is one we previously tested, interesting that the link goes back to the old 2010 test.

The 2012 SH AWD 6MT number is 14.0 @ 99.0 (14.5 @ 97.2 with T/C on)
The 2012 SH AWD 6AT number is 14.7 sec @ 98 mph

If anything these are consistant numbers

saturno_v

If you read careful my post, I did post a Motortrend test on the 2012 TL with the 6 speed MT

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/specs.html

0-60 in 5,3

1/4 mile in 13.9

Lateral acceleration 0.90 g

I believe all season tires once it is a 2012 model

For some reason the AT is noticeably slower than the MT even with the 6 speed.

Thank you for the link on the Inside line track test for the 2012 tl with 6 speed manual....I missed that before.

BEAR-AvHistory

Agree, it would be better to put Terry's BMW 135 JB4 up with the GT-R. The M3 is not quick enough.

Shoot2Thrill

The TL and the GT-R are great cars.

BEAR-AvHistory

Looks like the Motor Trend cars are getting a 1 foot roll out credit. Edmunds shows at 5.4 with a 1 foot roll out, but so they don't fudge to look better so they list it but don't use it instead using 5.7 with no roll out their primary chart. Taking 3/10's off the C&D, R&T & M/T elapsed time puts the car solidly back into the 14’s.

For those who don't know what roll out is:

The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock.

A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process.

Most novice racers don’t know or understand what shallow staging is....another reason they can’t match the magazines. Another way to improve on a shallow stage if the starter will let you get away with it is to stage on an angle so more rubber holds the clock start up further.

My Vette used to hook hard to the left so I always tried to shallow stage on an angle so the cars natural hook would point me straigh down the track sort of killing two evil birds with one stone.

BEAR-AvHistory

OPPS forgot to post the vid of the 135/GRT. "hotrod" driving Terrys BMW 135 in left lane for the win.


hotrod who is a very good driver (335 section of Drag Times with a best of 11.11 @ 129.4 in a JB4 6AT 335i) put a hole shot on the GTR that its quicker 11.0 to 11.2 could not make up.

Shoot2Thrill

Looks like you are leaning toward the Taurus, good luck either way.

g37guy01

What I think you are saying is the magazines numbers are puffed up.

saturno_v

Whatever different methodology they use, they apply them to all their testing regardless of brand.....so If Motortrend get a somewhat better time with the TL they will do with any other car...

dragonwang

TBH, why are you comparing drag times with the TL? TL is not made for a "drag racer", and neither is the ///M or GTR. Any car can be made to go fast with lots of $$$ and bad driver, but it takes skill to master on road course.

winstrolvtec

It's not fudged or puffed up to use a 1 ft roll out, that is what you get at the track, if you decide to use all of it. Most do as it usually yields the best ET's and traps. So there is not something going on with the tests that isn't also done at the track.

As far as not liking the 4G 6MT numbers because of super charged 3G's not being there, that is not good enough IMO. There is a lot more than raw power that goes into these things. ET's are not likely there because of traction and launching with it being FWD but I'm sure the traps are there to suggest that the power is. Dragtimes should have a few and you can see exactly what I mean. You can't always hold FWD, RWD, and AWD to the same standards when it comes to the track and drag racing outcomes.

FWIW, I have always been a firm believer that the 3G TLS 6MT has a close enough HP to weight ratio as the 4G 6MT to run similar numbers but the issue is and will continue to be the FWD layout and traction setup.

Most FI TL's are not running very much boost in the first place because it's FWD (especially with all the torque of SC'ing) and secondly, most are not setup well enough to handle all of that, it is afterall overpowered for it's drivetrain even stock. There is a point in FWD tuning where you factor in the law of diminishing returns. So the added power isn't well represented in the standard 1/4 mile, but would be easy to see in a 1/2 mile or roll race instead but standard methods don't account for that much.

Take for example the 3G TLS 6MT, it will beat a 4G 6MT to 130 mph from zero and from a high speed roll, there are numbers around for this and I have owned both to have a feel for how they perform in that range but you will never see a stock TLS 6MT run the kind of numbers the SH 6MT does.

However, with better suspension setup and drag radials, you would see it run very similar without a single HP added. There was a 3G TLS 6MT with just basic bolts (I,H,E) and a similar traction setup that I mentioned, running well into the 13's and 103+.

Shoot2Thrill

Thanks, what does all this have to do with the OP. R8 and GT3 owners are not buying based on 1950 era drag racing or are TL/SHO owners.
Keep the discussion to street legal cars and cars with modifications that don't void the warranty. Maybe even the two in the original OP.

pickler

wow I just wanted to justify 12k more for a tl and get opinions on it. its fulll out deate here about gtr vs m3. rofl people, most m3 and gtr owners do not keep cars stock. m3 with a supercharger is deadly vs the gtr. anyway u can find racing viseos about them on m5board.com

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e90...-3-e46-m3.html

anyway, ive decided to hold off purchase of a new car as it seems everyone I asked is divided ans I myself cannkt make up my mind. oh and saturno the reason why the 6at does poorly is because of tall gear ratios. acuras 6at needs a highee/shorter final drive. iys not thr number of gears its the rario of thrm that matters for acceleration. I have a wrx auto with 4 cogs, thats right 4! and it does 0-60 in 5.8s and 14.8s 1/4mi with only 223hp. wow I just wanted to justify 12k more for a tl and get opinions on it. its fulll out deate here about gtr vs m3. rofl people, most m3 and gtr owners do not keep cars stock. m3 with a supercharger is deadly vs the gtr. anyway u can find racing viseos about them on m5board.com

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e90...-3-e46-m3.html

anyway, ive decided to hold off purchase of a new car as it seems everyone I asked is divided ans I myself cannkt make up my mind. oh and saturno the reason why the 6at does poorly is because of tall gear ratios. acuras 6at needs a highee/shorter final drive. iys not thr number of gears its the rario of thrm that matters for acceleration. I have a wrx auto with 4 cogs, thats right 4! and it does 0-60 in 5.8s and 14.8s 1/4mi with only 223hp.and that was b4 stage ii tune.

BEAR-AvHistory

^^^

I feel your pain on making a choice, been there on a number of occasions. All my FORDS since the '98 Ranger have been bought under the FORD "A" plan.

On some of the other comments:

Agree they use the same base for all cars since they are very competitive with each other with each wanting to run the best time speed for the feature car cover shot caption. C&D certainly had no trouble with De John Z. DeLorean, of cocaine trading fame, supplying a supposed stock 389CI GTO with a ringer 412 Super Duty motor for the famous Pontiac GTO vs. Ferrari GTO cover feature. A number of the press cars that did actually have 389’s also had Royal Bobcat kits tucked inside them.

I use a Bobcat kit on my 66 Ram Air Tri-Power, 6MT, no Power Steering, no A/C GTO & an off the floor GTO could not match it. The Bobcat was thin head gaskets to raise the CR. modified rocker arms & adjusters, modified distributor parts, blocked heat risers & modified tri-carb parts.

Regardless with or without the rollout M/T tested the SHO Faster & Quicker then the TL. As for tires $1000 will get you summers for the TL or a 12 second tune for the SHO.

The point I was trying to make is not that the mags don’t use a 1 ft rollout but that it was interesting that Edmunds does not or tells you the spread when it does. This can explain why we hear a lot of “Edmunds testers can’t drive” when it posts slower times.

I also disagree the all racers know about how to stage for roll-out when more then one you talk to thinks the pre-stage light has something to do with it & the fact that many guys from Acurazine who have gone to the track ask why is my car so slow compared to (take a pick) magazine. Since maybe WAG 90% of the readers here have never even driven on a track they also likely that most don’t understand rollout.

Finally the 6MT guy I was following week by week on the 3G forum that made a lot of improvement in ET over a summer of racing did not get well into the 13’s he eventually made 13.9 with bolt-ons & had 13.9 as part of his avatar. Could be others but the are as common as hens teeth & all are modified.

winstrolvtec

1) That they did but that was never really a counter argument and $1k gets you upgraded results in either case but identifying how the results compare with a level playing field helps determine where you are and which direction you can go (even where you will end up) with either vehicle if you so choose to. Same concept so they are equal points IMO, it then becomes a matter of preferring straight-line acceleration or handling/braking.

2) Edmunds testers are simply more conservative and they tend to make use of the traction control in a lot of cases where others don't. They do breakdown 0-60 with the use of a 1ft rollout and also without, same goes for traction control being on or off, in most cases. That's great, many others don't go as far and don't really specify either but 1/4 mile testing would not be true to the whole dragstrip theme without a rollout, that is how you remove reaction time from the equation afterall, so all 1/4 testing makes use of one.

3) Very true and I agree but I didn't imply all or didn't mean to anyway, only that the experienced dragstrip racer (the one who is actually capable of replicating magazine results as opposed to a novice) normally would make good use of the whole rollout depending on knowledge of his/her ability and the car’s.

4) Right again but that is as far as the 3G 6MT’s go, which have never really broken 13's stock anyway. So adding bolts to a low 14 sec car seems to make sense that it would hit 13's. Then add suspension and drag radials and you are working even lower, obviously because traction and launching are also very important, an advantage AWD and RWD already has over FWD from the start.

That is not really relative to a 4G 6MT, it's a totally different animal in it's own right, but if you wish to infer based on that info you are just validating my prior points. 13.9 for a 3G 6MT that probably only matches the 4G SH 6MT power in the first place and is lacking of AWD for harder launching and superior traction, makes 13.7 for a 4G 6MT not only possible but also highly likely.

4G 6MT's are rare as it is, and then with a rate of only 10% or less actually frequenting the track, I don't expect to see many posted timeslips if any at all. Fact of the matter is, whether anybody likes a time or not, if the purpose of the info is to only compare, such as in the manner of this thread for example, then magazines stats should suffice.

To make an argument that it's different when applied to the track is an argument against all cars who have magazine stats, not only the TL. To suggest that some cars’ stats translate to dragstrips and others don't, just because of an absence of a particular kind of info, is contradictory in itself, which seems to be one of your points. On the other hand, it is true that of all performance info and stats, whether it comes from magazines or from timeslips, both have low and high numbers, or better or worse results in other words, which is more along the lines of my point and maybe one or two others here as well. One point makes the case for all cars (TL included) and the other seems to only make a case against the TL, the way it is used here anyway.

BEAR-AvHistory

Well spring is coming & maybe one of the 4G 6MT guys with summer tires can get himself to the Dyno & track to prove or disprove the claims here. I would even kick in $75 for some Dynojet runs. I recommend Dynojet because I am familiar with the unit..run my own tests on one...and using dyno brand A vs. brand B only adds more craziness.

pickler

best idea in the thread so far.

eez4life

Spend the money. You can't take it with u.