Wavehogger

I couldn't get this so you can read it on here so I put it on my site.
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/65402...28_5UzM3-X3-LB

So it looks like Motor Trend has the best 1/4 mile time so far. (14.7 @97.2mph) They got a 6.2 0-60, but who knows how they did it. Probably with break torque.

Either way it was funny to see on the next page the Audi A4 2.0T we've all been talking about, with a 0-60 in 6.5 and 15.0 @92mph. Not bad at all but not times some have been reporting.

SSFTSX

They tested at 3950lbs with $44K price. only 18.9mpg fuel.
They gave only One star for design and only three stars for Value.

PetesTL

....yet, they named it a finalist. So, what's your point?

ll_22

Hello, been lurking for a while and in the market for the 09TL.

RE: Audi A4, I think the faster times were referring to 3.2 and not the 2.0T; the times are close to what Audi states on their website.

RE: the TL #'s. What I have not been able to reconcile are: 1) "Honda claims that the SH-AWD is about 0.5 seconds faster in 0-60 than the base TL" 2) "Acura states that the SH-AWD is about 0.3 seconds faster than the outgoing TL-type S in 0-60". I cannot remember from which articles but these are the two numbers that stuck in my mind. The problems is that wavehogger's #'s and various mag's numbers don't really match what Honda/Acura claimed prior to the vehicle's release for testing.

Since I do not own the 3G TL-typeS, maybe we can start the reconciliation by establishing what is a real world 0-60 and 1/4mi time for the 3G TL-S 5AT?

VTEC Racer

Is break-torquing not the best way to get fast times with the TL since it is an auto and all?

CL6

It was a nice write-up but maybe the title says it all?

cjTL

iTrader: (2)

Possibly, however it seems bashing the power plenum grille is like beating the dead cow these days. Geez.
Decent review though.

TLTrance

I think its a little harsh to say that the design is at a one star level. That's the worst rating, so this means its as bad as some of the worst cars in history? Aztek anyone?

CL6

I think there is a 0 Star rating. Hey, some people liked the way the Aztek looked. I'm sure Acura will re-design the grill after the beating its been taking in the press but probably not for 2 more model years. One thing I've been noticing on this car is the way the sides flair out... makes it look like a larger car. I know many didn't like the slab sides of the TL/TSX but I thought it looked okay. The TL SH-AWD does look like it handles very nicely on the track.

Thing is, the 3G TL was so much better and so different looking from the 2G TL. I'm wondering why the 4G TL wasn't evolutionary in design rather than 'revolutionary.'

SebringSilver

I drive past an Acura dealership everyday on my way to work. I tell ya, the 4G is looking better and better in my eyes every time I see it. I especially like the rear, in fact. The rear three-quarter view is my favourite right now, and the whole car has a new-found "Lexus" look to it, which I rather like.

Yes, the folks at Acura have taken the TL in a different direction. It might not sit well with some of the existing 3G TL owners, but it will certainly bring new customers into the fold who previously would not have looked seriously at the TL.

Well done to Acura.

SSFTSX

If it wasnt for Acura Badge and Honda engineering poweress these thing could have gotten 0 Star. Its fine to have TL on Accord platoform but dont make it Accord size for Sports/Luxury sedan. Nissan learned that. Maxima is no bigger than Altima but with much better styling.
Acura could have built similarly styled/size sedan like TSX but with slightly muscular look/lights/Rims with all the gizmos of SH-AWD for $37K~$38K. They went overboard with styling and price.



Couple of years back Acura RL won comparision test based on similar formule of 300bhp & SH-AWD but that was 2005 now we are in 2009.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta.../pageNumber=11

S2000 Driver

PetesTL

Did the Aztek ever make it as a finalist for MT's Car of the Year? The reason the 4G made the finals is because MT loved all other aspects of the car. They gave it 5 stars for performance, engineering, and safety. Styling is purely subjective. If they threw that category out, I believe the 4G would have given the Nissan GT-R a run for its money for COTY.

PetesTL

So you're expecting Acura to build a TSX-like vehicle with over 300hp, AWD, big rims, and all the current features of the 4G for the same price as a 3G TL from a few years ago?!......which planet are you from? Seriously, man, lay off the pipe. BTW, a loaded Maxima costs almost the same as Infiniti G35/37, but it has less features, less luxury, and less performance....not to mention it's an economy brand.

PetesTL

Concerning the Car of the Year award, I'm kind of shocked that MT picked the Nissan GT-R.....esp. in light of today's economy. I thought for sure they would pick a hybrid or something. Now, I love the GT-R......if I had $80K to blow on a car, it would be on the top of my list. However, I wish they made a consideration for vehicles which most of the general public can actually afford. .....they did that last year with the CTS, so it's surprising to me that with the economy in the toilet, they would pick a car this year where most people can't even afford the insurance on.

Colin

Interesting. I'm pretty sure I'd be looking at a Porsche of some sort.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Car and Driver actually got 5.7s for 0-60mph and 14.4@94mph for the A4 2.0T Quattro. That's quite a bit faster than what Motortrend got for the exact same car. The difference is like a 6MT TL vs a 5AT TL, which is huge.

Wavehogger did some extensive testing on his TL SH-AWD to find out the best way to launch (or best way up to this point). He found that by brake-torquing like most magazines do, would cause the gearbox to AUTOMATICALLY shift to 2nd gear, even if you put it in first gear. This obviously would cause a delay and a much slower 0-60mph time, and also the 1/4 mile time. In fact, wavehogger found that without braketorquing, the car would start in 1st gear normally and can hit 0-60mph 1 second faster.

Of course, it doesn't mean you can simply take 1 second off Car and Driver's time or Motortrend's time, otherwise you will be seeing 0-60mph in 5-5.2s!

We don't really know how fast the TL takes to go from 0-60mph yet but it seems like with the right method, it should hit it in less than 6s.

CL6

A car that out performs a Porsche but costs 200k less? That's a no brainer. Besides, even if .5% of the driving public could afford the insurance there wouldn't be enough GT-Rs to go around.

Anyway, there's nothing new in the hybrid scene.

PetesTL

Actually, my local Nissan dealer has a silver GT-R that hasn't sold for 3 months....he's actually selling it for MSRP.

SebringSilver

I don't think you guys would want to get a GT-R. I don't see why ANYONE would want to get a GT-R.

It might have blistering performance numbers, but you wouldn't even want to try to duplicate what you see on YouTube or read in the car magazines...and all for one simple reason:

If you use the Launch Control on this car, it voids the warranty. If you break the transmission by over-using the Launch Control, a new tranny costs US$20,000 and as mentioned, your warranty won't cover it.

Nissan dealers are keeping very hush about this. Be very careful if you're considering the GT-R.

ILLustriousUA6

iTrader: (2)

o man i want the GT-R so bad.

without all that bull shit ass shadyness. They act as if the goddam fkin GT-R needs to be restricted.. LAME.

there are other cars out there just as fast, but without all this restriction on the car... why the GTR?

SebringSilver

Nissan is also being put to the sword by Porsche who put their best test driver out on the Nurburgring in a GT-R that they purchased to try to duplicate the record time that the car set on the fabled racetrack. The Porsche driver couldn't get within 25 seconds of the laptime that Nissan has been boasting about. There is now widespread belief that the time reported by Nissan was achieved by using race fuel and/or race tires. In other words, it's now being alleged that Nissan cheated.

Don't believe everything you read folks, not even from what you might think are reputable sources.

Hugh9269

Also consider the every GT-R produces different test results, that is incredibly strange and many car magazines have really questioned that issue.

SebringSilver

Yep, something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark.

PetesTL

For me, in a nutshell, the GT-R is a $80K car that performs like a $200K car but looks like a $30K car.

CL6

This was covered in a car magazine. Nissan not only submitted the video of the entire lap but also photos of the car, the driver, the track, and the TIRES. Then they offered lessons to Porsche!

Sounds like schadefreude on the part of Porsche. I saw one at the auto show and that thing is freaking impressive. And if you read different car magazines you will see different results. Temperature, track conditions, driver skill, etc... I trust Car & Driver. It is also impressive that one guy thought up the car and oversaw its entire development and worked many years to bring it to market.

As to voiding the warranty that is not correct. If you misuse something and break it no company covers it under warranty.

"The singular thing people need to remember is that using launch control does not void the warranty - The warranty clause regarding the operation of the vehicle with VDC turned off states that Nissan will not cover damage or failures of otherwise covered components, IF it can be determined that the use of launch control led or contributed to the failure. The act of using launch control (which requires turning off the VDC) will not automatically void the vehicle warranty. Simply put, the warranty outlines that failures or damage resulting from things such as misuse, accidents, non-factory modifications, etc. are not covered under the factory warranty.

Further, the warranty states that VDC should only be turned off to help when rocking the vehicle when stuck in mud or snow.

Nissan will not void the entire warranty on any of our cars based on one specific issue of one specific component or system, however, a part or system won’t be covered under warranty if Nissan determines that the failure was as a result of misuse, modifications, etc. (as mentioned above)."

http://www.gt-rforum.com/showthread.php?t=1554

SebringSilver

Ooops, you're right. What I should have said is Nissan is making it explicit now (they're actually making it a requirement for GT-R purchasers to sign a waiver before they drive their newly-acquired vehicle off the lot) that if the failure of the transmission is resulted from the over or mis-use of the Launch Control and disabling VDC, the warranty will not cover the repair or replacement of the transmission. It doesn't void the entire warranty. My apologies for the mistake.

However, GT-R owners are apparently up in arms because deploying LC (which requires the disabling of the VDC) is done simply by pushing a few buttons while stepping on the brake pedal. It's a process that is clearly outlined in the owner's manual. So why would a manufacturer not protect its customers from damage that is caused by using the vehicle as instructed by the manufacturer? If you don't want to deal with the damage that is going to be caused by using the car the way it was intended, perhaps Nissan shouldn't be providing the Launch Control feature at all.

I can't imagine that Acura (or any other manufacturer) would say, "sorry, I can't repair your stereo because you keep playing music on it," while it's still under warranty.

Sorry if this is off-topic.

6SpdTerror

Nissan has announced that it will not offer launch control in the 2010 GTR, as per edmunds inside line. Obviously nissan is trying to cover their asses with that BS statement about "misuse of the laucnh control". If you can only use LC while the VDC is turned off but theyre saying that you shouldnt turn it off.....sounds contradictory to me. Nissan can keep their P.O.S. GTR. Ive never liked the cheap ass interiors on Nissans and their build quality.

CL6

I'm sure when used properly the launch control doesn't destroy the transmission but some owners probably abuse it trying to see how low they can get their 0-60s. I think most places would void parts of the warranty if the driver abused it... like if I blew the speakers on my stereo by playing it too loudly or something. I'm sure a lot of care went into designing it but you can never plan for stupidity I guess. Besides, you never know what will happen to your product until it starts getting into the hands of people who do all sorts of things an engineer would never do! Take Lawn Darts, for example!

PetesTL

The GT-R is essentially just a 350Z with a killer engine and a fancy drivetrain......but at the end of the day, still just a Nissan.

Monte TLS,MAX

Exactly!

SebringSilver

Interestingly, the GT-R's 0-60 time rises to approximately 4.1 seconds when launch control is not deployed. Still hugely impressive, but no longer world-beating. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Anyway, sorry for the digression.

CL6

That's funny because it's pretty much what people said about the NSX when it came out... it's just an overpriced Honda. And it's what they say about the TL, too!

PetesTL

Yes, but the NSX looks like an exotic........you could spot this car a mile away and know it's the NSX. When you look at the GT-R, it looks like they spent most of the time on the hardware and the exterior looks like an afterthought.

BEAR-AvHistory

I lived in England when the NSX was still being sold. Our town, Gerrards Cross, had a Honda dealer & he loved keeping the NSX in the window.

Funny thing, all the NSX name plates said HONDA.

CL6

ROFL sounds like some justification to me. That car is fast as stink, it looks like nothing else on the road, it has an amazing price point, it'll be reliable, and the digital dash has so many cool and useful things on it it's crazy not to mention it'll be a tuner's dream. It's the NSX Honda should have built instead of that ugly critter it's going to make.

I'd take a new GT-R any day of the week. Nothing under 100k can touch it.

And I think many people who own an NSX will say that there are tons of people who don't know what that car is... nothing against the NSX I adore that car but it's not on people's radar anymore. Only the wise are aware of it.

cg2006TSX

From MT:

"...and far short of the BMW-like dynamics to which it aspires."

And to think those 4G TL buyers could have drove off with a 328 and pocketed a few thousand dollars to boot.

PetesTL

Personally, I'll take the new CTS-V over the GT-R........overall performance is similar but the CTS-V has way better looks and is much better as a day-to-day car (you can actually seat 4 adults in the CTS-V).....besides the fact that you can actually order a CTS-V at MSRP unlike the GT-R.

PetesTL

The 4G SH-AWD is faster and corners better than the 328i. The 328i has an old and dated interior. A fully-loaded 328i costs as much as $45K. MT gave the 4G 5 stars for performance. Nice try, but come back when you think of something better.

CL6

Well the GT-R has a few things going for it like not being made by a company that might go out of business and not having resale value in the toilet. The Robb Report did a write-up on the Caddy roadster and, for them, it spent half its time in the shop including a partial engine failure that required a tow back to the dealership. For me, these are important factors when I look to buy a car.

I don't think anybody orders a GT-R for a day-to-day car anyway.