MAC-n-back-of-da-AC

Anyone know the performance numbers on the new 2012 Acura TL sh-awd 6 speed auto? I would think that it would be pretty improved with the addition of another gear.

I've been trying to search it, but I haven't really found anything concrete.

Looking for quarter mile and 0-60 times

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Nope, I haven't seen any road test on that yet. I'd imagine it's between TL 5AT and TL 6MT. So something like this...

0-60mph: 5.6s
1/4 mile: 14.3s@99mph

BLACKURA_NY

iTrader: (6)

Acura is one of the few brands who will never really release those specific times (mainly for accountability purposes, plus their numbers arent always the most impressive)

I agree with the above, but imagine the numbers somewhere in between the 5AT & 6MT TL model year 09-11.. but i am thinking more like


0-60 - 5.7-5.8 (tires make a HUGE difference)
1/4 Miles - 14.1~

The new 6AT will definitely improve acceleration numbers, but dont forget the car is still close to 4000lbs, where as the 6MT is, i believe, like 250lbs lighter

Hope that helps!

Hapa DC5

I thought the 6MT was about 110lbs. lighter?? I could be mistaken.

Mr. Maker

iTrader: (4)

Big pun.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

yea it's around 100+lb lighter.

pickler

there shouldnt be much difference in the auto in terms of performance. the 6AT is purly for fuel economy reasons. they pretty much have the same ratio except with an addition of another overdrive gear:

Acura's 5AT gear ratios:
2.70 x 4.31 = 11.63x torque multipication
1.61 x 4.31 = 6.90
1.07 x 4.31 = 4.61
0.69 x 4.31 = 2.97
0.49 x 4.31 = 2.11

Acura's 6AT gear ratios:
3.36 x 3.72 = 12.49
2.10 x 3.72 = 7.81
1.49 x 3.72 = 5.54
1.07 x 3.72 = 3.98
0.75 x 3.72 = 2.79
0.56 x 3.72 = 2.08

as you can see there is very little difference in torque multipication. unlike other cars such as g37 which has over 16x torque multiplication in first gear, TL's gear ratios are more conservative. of course the new dual clutch transmission should reduce shift times making quarter mile runs faster. but the gears are so wide that there is very little shifting for the 0-60 run to affect the numbers.

car and driver test of 2012 TL produced these numbers:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.2–5.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.8–14.5 sec
Top speed : 130–134 mph

this is still pretty impressive considering TL's huge size and weight compared to the G and 335. Imagine if acura fitted more aggressive gear ratios. the g37x has similar numbers 0-60 mph 5.1s and Quarter Mile 13.5s

compewterbleu

It is impressive.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

C/D Test (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test)


Displacement: 223 cu in, 3664 cc
Power (SAE net): 305 hp @ 6300 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 273 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manual shifting mode
DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 109.3 in Length: 194.0 in
Width: 74.0 in Height: 57.2 in
Curb weight: 3994 lb
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 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
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 18/26 mpg
C/D observed: 21 mpg

JM2010 SH-AWD

That's too bad - still about a second slower to 60 than the MT. I was hoping for AT buyers' sake that they'd be able to lower gap between AT and MT times.

cp3117

I think you found the very first independent test "iforyou".

After reading their test I assume they tested the advance model with the 19" tires, if so you may see slightly better 0-60 times etc with the standard 18" wheels on the SH-AWD.

I figured you wouldnt see times or performance similar to the 6MT being the 6MT has different suspention upgrades etc but hopefully the AT will do better in other tests. I figured it would do better than 6.2 in 0-60 and more around constant 5.8-5.9s range. Although the average times for the 6MT are around 5.5s it makes sense that the 6AT would be a half second or more slower also.

The braking and skid pad test was no surprise though. I said many times over the past few years that the low production HPT tire package was the saving grace for the 4G in many of the tests and now you can really see how important the tires where in making it competitive in various reviews and tests.

It will be interesting to see the test report from C&D (weather cond, actual tires used etc) once they attach the link.....so far it doesnt appear to be on there.

jasonwdp10

pickler, car and driver got 6.2 seconds to 60 for the 2012 6AT SHAWD TL, not 5.2

the 5.2 was for the 6 speed manual TL, which is 110lb lighter, add another 20+lb for the 2012 model

"Since the manual powertrain in the all-wheel-drive TL carries over—and we previously tested one—we hooked our test gear to the AWD-equipped automatic. Although not as fast as the row-your-own, which took only 5.2 seconds to hit 60 mph, the new auto did the dash in 6.2 seconds and needed 14.7 seconds to clear the quarter-mile at 98 mph. Compared with the five-speed auto, those are improvements of 0.3 second to 60 mph and 0.4 second and 3 mph in the quarter."

"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 ¼-mile: 14.7 sec @ 98 mph"

The G37 7AT is 5.4s to 60, 14s 1/4 mile, 5-60 in 6.3s.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...7_sport_page_4
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...a5a19cf81a.pdf

jasonwdp10

It does, however, feel slightly more lively and is better for daily driving due to gearing

winstrolvtec

While I don't think those are the best times the vehicle is capable of, there is a noted improvement which is probably the most important part to focus on. C&D's last test results were among the worst if not the worst for the auto. It might not be a stretch to apply those differences to the faster publisized times of the 5AT to get an idea of what it is ultimately capable of in ideal conditions. MT got a 5.9, 14.4 and 99 mph for 09 HPT. So I wouldn't rule out 5.6, 14.0, and 102 mph but wouldn't expect that to be an average or very consistent.

I am curious about the test conditions in general but more importantly Acura doesn't allow their autos to brake torque which puts them at a disadvantage "on paper" and would lend a huge benefit to the run times but not necessarily how fast or slow it actually is, since they usually test with a 1 ft rollout and some cars get (and are just capable of better running starts) than others and in all cases the TL gets nearly none. Likewise, that amount of "stall" which yields better times but would slow one down in an actual race. Those things should be accounted for or at least considered but rarely ever are.

There is till too much of a discrepancy between the 6MT and 6AT times. Yes, the 6MT launches effectively where the 6AT doesn't and then there is the difference in gearing, weight and the all season HPT vs summer HPT but a full second difference in run times seems like something is still off. IMO, a half second difference is the most we should be seeing now.

As a side, the PS2's were good for the car and anytime you downgrade any tire on any car it will represent itself but I am not sure just how much it impacts the TL exclusively. I am sure test results from all cars would suffer as a result of now using all seasons compared to summers as well.

The previous HPT was very much like comepetitors' sport packages which include rims, summers and usually suspension enhancements. I believe the TL still suffers less with these tires in the advance package than those models without their respective sport packages.

docboy

I agree. Prior to the 2012 TL release I had a hunch the 6AT improvements wouldn't be in the performance arena, but rather fuel efficiency (as shown in the FWD's 29 highway mpg).

Still too much performance gap between the 6MT and 6AT IMHO.

I think at this stage Acura needs a true dual clutch transmission, which would likely IMHO bring the 6AT's performance closer to that of the levels of the 6MT.

jasonwdp10

doc, the Base models new found efficiency is more due to the engine modifications (reduced friction) than the transmission. The transmissions true gains are closer to 1mpg for city and 1mpg for hwy.

"To further improve operating efficiency, the TL’s 3.5L V-6 engine receives a host of friction-reduction technologies including a new plateau-honing technique for the cylinders, piston skirts with a new molybdenum coating, redesigned ion-plated piston rings and lower viscosity engine oil."

docboy

^Jason, true. I had forgotten about the friction reduction measures.

JM2010 SH-AWD

Thought it would be interesting to compare the 2012 AT's numbers to the 535ix (AT) that C&D recently tested:


VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan

PRICE AS TESTED: $67,875 (base price: $53,275)

ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979 cc
Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 6250 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 1200 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 8-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 116.9 in Length: 193.1 in
Width: 73.2 in Height: 57.6 in
Curb weight: 4272 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.1 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 26.6 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 100 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 146 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 168 ft
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 19/29 mpg
C/D observed: 15 mpg

jasonwdp10

so.. 6mt aside, i guess u were wrong about acceleration?

JM2010 SH-AWD

Nice try. The quote you pulled above was from a different thread, as I'm sure you must know. The comparison there was MT to MT, where the TL outruns the 535. The TL auto seems abnormally slow relative to the TL MT compared to other brands' MT to AT times. Don't know why, but it is what it is.

The post I made above in this thread was to set out a comparison of AT to AT times, raising the question, among others, of whether a half a second in the quarter mile and 0-60, AT to AT, is worth 23K. If the answer for you is yes, go for it.

zman19

Thats pretty disappointing from a pure numbers perspective. I thought it would at least be in the fives....still great overall performance though. I suppose that need to feel more power will have to opt for the manual. Gotta at least appreciate the fact that they still offer it.

jasonwdp10

calm your nuts..

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Here is Car and Driver Road Test of the 2009 TL Sh-AWD with 19" Wheels and HPT:
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...2f72d88498.pdf

0-60mph: 6.0s
0-100mph: 15.8s
1/4 mile: 14.7@97mph

winstrolvtec

^The one with 483 miles on it and full on brake torque even though the car starts out in 2nd gear when you do so. Then there is the early comparo results which they used to compare the new test to.

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...fdee60f558.pdf

At least they used that one to demonstrate an improvement otherwise we would be reading that there is no acceleration benefit. Then again, maybe there isn't.

winstrolvtec

What's interesting is Motorweek lists the 0-60 at 5.5 and their test car was the auto. That likely puts it in the 13.9-14.1 range at 100-102 mph.

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt3037a.shtml

JM2010 SH-AWD

I have driven the AT but obviously don't own one. I wonder if the acceleration time differences posted above are due to the fact that the AT may allow for more variance in launch techniques.

ZCL

That's a big difference in 0-60 times. Perhaps one actually launched the car and the only simply stomped it from the start?

zman19

I would take the Motorweek numbers with a grain of salt.....sometimes they just estimate and don't actually perform the 0-60mph test.

zman19

I'm surprised mostly bc the ZDX, which weighs almost 500lbs more than the TL SH-AWD and has the same engine/tranny combo, puts up nearly identical quarter mile times....and almost the same 0-60

cp3117

Dont get caught up in this brake torquing thing. I thought this was put to rest a few years ago when we debated it here and proved that these major Car Reviewers know about the differences in how different manufactuer's transmissions work and therefore MANY different/variation of tests are performed in order to get the best and most accurate results....This brake torquing theory is usual brought up when certain people dont like the results their seeing.

When motorweek stated that the 0-60 was "unchanged" i decided to go see what their previous results were as they where obvioulsy basing it off of the 2009 test. Sure enough, in the written article in 2009 they stated "We expect 0-60 runs of about 5.5 seconds." Clearly they estimated this and it makes sense being that no other major reviewers that do full tests came anywhere consistantly close to 5.5s and the average is 6.2s

I havent seen the 2012 Video test of the 4G by MotorWeek, but the few posts from members that have say they didnt really test the vehicle and was more of a Sunday Drive review like the 2009 Test.

jasonwdp10

I think I saw somewhere that the zdx was around 6.5 seconds. I'd say the TL is a low 6, possibly high 5.

Yup exactly! They are doubting techniques used by numerous car review websites and magazines who test tons of cars using a variation of techniques that all happen to come up with the same #s? GET REAL!

The TL ain't that fast of a car, get over it!

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

^^ actually, they didn't come up with the same #'s for the TL 5AT. THe slowest I've seen is 6.7s frmo 0-60mph. The fastest I've seen is 5.9s or 6s (C/D or Motortrend or road and track, can't remember). The range is pretty big. That's why some people were wondering about the techniques.

As shown in above posts, Car and Driver alone got 2 different times for the TL 5AT, 6.5s and 6s.

winstrolvtec

I think most people agree that testers would use the best time they acheived however it was done but that doesn't change the fact that there is a huge inconsistency when we know the car starts out in 2nd gear if you brake torque as a fact and then a major publication insists that their test was done with "full on brake torque". No one is questioning the car or the magazine per say but anyone with a brain should question the inconsistency and also the roughly one full second disprecepancy between the worst and best times of the vehicle when the normal is about half of that.

So while I don't disagree with what you are saying, it doesn't change any of this and the possibility that no one is perfect and why no one can pin point exactly what the reason(s) for all of this are in the TL's case specifically.

I think it's worth noting that you say people make up some argument when they don't like the test result or numbers (which again isn't really the issue) basically questioning a set of data yourself which is exactly the same thing but you go ahead and act as if it is somehow different or better and it's not.

I think for or against, everyone has the right to question any of the data and test results in this thread, inlcuding MotorWeek. They all are subject to suspicion if you ask me especially since all of our own personal assessments of how the vehicle probably fairs are pretty close and don't exactly match up to the reviews.

And as a side, differences in brake torque ability as well as those that don't, are not irrelevant when dealing with tests that involve a 1 ft rollout. If a car brake torques and gets slightly better times while another doesn't and has slightly slower times, it does not necessarily mean that the faster times translate to the faster car. That goes for a car that has a higher or lower "stall" ability as well.

Brake torqued times usually experience a big "on paper" benefit that doesn't exist in real time or real world situations compared to non brake torqued times. The same car will usually clock faster with this technique than without it but is not truly any faster when using it if you don't use a rollout. As a matter of fact it's actually slower because of the increased time it takes to get moving. Most of the times these numbers and tests are time trials vs the clock and don't effectively race against each other the way the cars would.

jjsC5

You make great points, and I make the same point about cars with AWD. 0-XX times look better, but for real world driving trap speed tells me more about the cars performance in the real world. I also like Car&Drivers 5-60 time. You can compare it to their 0-60 time and it paints a picture.

cp3117

You always say that the 6AT can never be brake torqued. While I have seen one example here a few years ago where it couldnt, Jeff over at TOV when testing the 6AT clearly stated that he had no difference in times weather he mildly brake torqued the car or not. He achieved an average of 5.9-6.0s using both methods.

Many vehicles today cannot be brake torqued due to the many safety and VSC systems and you can see the same time differences between other brands and models too.


Actually im not questioning the data (being they never tested the vehicle) so much as I was questioning your source and how you immediately took an estimated number and then started to make up your own estimated 1/4 mile times etc. The OP was looking for facts, not estimates based off of other estimates.

I also think its fine to question how things are done by other automotive testers as they all dont test vehicles exactly the same way. I will take their test results though being they are professionals at what they do using very good testing equptment over peoples own personal assesments based off of "butt dyno's" or an iphone with a $10 app thrown into the console.


I see what your trying to say regarding times with 1 foot rollout, but this is also why some reviews dont use them or they test the vehicles seperately when it comes to 0-60 times vs 1/4 mile times.

Many of these tests are done using GPS based equiptment and not done at race tracks where beams are utilized. Using a 1 foot rollout now starts to bring into play driver ability and other factors, (ie: shallow or deep staging, wheel diameter, etc etc.) rather than just the cars natural factory ability that the general consumer can relate too from a dead stop.

I am not to sure what you mean by brake torque numbers not existing in real world situations though. The majority of these tests done by automotive journalists are done to see the maximum ability of the vehicles from a factory standpoint. If the 4G cant brake torque like many other vehicles then unfortunately thats a problem they will have to address if they feel its that much of an issue.

winstrolvtec

The 5AT does not "effectively" brake torque, meaning if you were to use the brakes to hold the car in place while you are revving at something like 4k rpms in order to launch the car, when you release the brakes and hit the accelerator, the tranny will upshift to second, defeating the purpose.

Jeff never said there was no difference in times or that he got roughly 6 seconds both ways, what he said was he tried to mildly brake torque but experienced no benefit opposed to just gassing and it's no wonder why. Obviously using that method was slower when his fastest times (which are some of the best for this car) were from simple brake release and gas. Most people will brake torque and never be fully aware that the tranny has upshifted.

Here's the link. http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...page_number=1&

I agree the TL is not alone in this, many cars don't allow it or it to be done effectively, one way or another but then there are those that do and do it well. I know first hand the 3 series does as does the G and both a good amount too. In some case like the A4, it even has a hidden software mode that short shifts automatically when you brake torque as well.

It sure sounds like they didn't test the 09 but do you know or can say without any degree of uncertainty that they tested neither of these cars?

I only commented on how I though it was interesting that they attained that number, nothing more, nothing less. My personal assessment of what the car can or can't do comes from previously tested numbers (5.9-6.0) with consideration to what an additional gear can add and has added the other Acura vehicles.

I'm pretty sure the OP has factual info to go off of but he nor anyone else should take a single test as the final say. That's the underlying theme when anyone asks for any performance numbers for any car but especially when it comes from a few suspicious test results.

There is plenty of other info here as well that gives one some other things to consider and it offers a hand in obtaining a better, broader idea of the vehicles acceleration capabilities which don't exist in a single set of numbers but usually within a range instead.

No doubt the pros do good work but there is so much variance in these things as it is and a number of things that can still go wrong and even sets of data that sometimes should not be directly compared to other sets for a variety of reasons yet they still do so themeslves. Standardization is good but it's also a bit one dimensional.

I would rather use a $10 app and compare cars together on the same day within a given timeframe. While the time itself may not be that accurate or properly calibrated, it would give me a better idea of how the cars relate then two independent test result from the pros. I would also be able to compare more appropriately using more exact parameters. Mags test for the fastest single time not necessarily the most equal of parameters and how they relate to each other, one car brake torquing while the other doesn't is one example.

Usually for 0-60 they test both with and without a 1ft seperately from the 1/4 mile but in most cases, the rollout mode is built into the software for the track testing (1/4), even if it's not done at an actual track. They can even choose how to set it based on 1ft, the tire diameter, none, or more so it makes matters even worse.

For some, 0-60 is a small sample size and 1/4 mile and trap speed is more important but if one car brake torques while the other doesn't you can't effectively "race" those numbers without further consideration, you shouldn't really even do so if they are not back-to-back or side-by-side. Most people don't actually race but still use these time trial numbers as a basis for real world ability. Brake torquing reflects higher numbers but the only time the brake torque numbers exist is when you brake torque which is not often in real world situations.

So max results in comparison don't really mean much except for when you are trying to get max times of course, which is not often. They don't always tell the story for how cars relate under other circumstances. I don't think the issue is Acura losing out on max numbers, it's that people draw more conclusion from then they probably should. They fail to realize and consider that there may be reasons for better times that don't necessarily have anything to do with actually being faster and then how that applies to real world driving and situations.

A hypothetcial faster time by .3 and 1 mph from brake torquing is not insignificant by some standards but that time would be that much less without the technique. So it's not a matter of faster or slower all of the time, sometimes it's a matter of ability to run better numbers, there is a difference.

Another example would be a high stall torque converter install for heavy brake torquing which effectively improves run times by giving the car better running starts or launches, especially with 1 ft rollouts but it is in fact making the car slower, as it eats up more usable power. This is also evident by most dyno's, after the fact, which read lower. It is entirely possible for a slower car to run faster numbers.

Personally, it's for these reasons that traps and rolling starts are probably better for comparison purposes except those top gear runs which provide good data but not very useful.

AZuser

I know this is an old thread, but thought I'd update it with this:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...tl-sh-awd.html