Torque curves are great if your throwing engines in to identical cars; same weight, drivetrain and C/D. Other than that thay may not mean much in the real world. We really can't compare different brands of cars with different drivetrains, it's not a fair analysis. Other Honda's that I have driven have DBW issues that have been rectified by signal amps. They really do change the driveability of the car. (PLEASE NOTE: DRIVEABILITY, NOT PERFORMANCE)

 

The TL is no dog. In terms of performance in the usual measures, the G37 might spec out a little better(engine, not handling), but if you are in a real world situation, I would have no problem taking the TL to the track and expecting to beat a comrade from the Nissan test driver camp. The extra weight is a concern, but the handling makes up for it very well. It drives smaller(weighty) than it is.

 

Thanks for posting the G37 dyno; that's actually very informative. The closest thing I've seen to a dyno is on the Acura website; you have to have flash and the hp/torque scales on the graph are not the same (so annoying).

http://www.acura.com/InteractiveShow...ormance_engine

If you click the "Rev Engine" button, you have a precious few seconds to decipher the graph (look to the right for the torque scale, not to the left, which is the HP scale).

According to the graph, the J37A4 is making approx 180 ft lbs @ 2,000 RPM at the crank VS the G37 which appears to be making 200 ft lbs @ 2,000 RPM at the wheels.

Assuming a very efficient AWD system that loses only 25% of the power, that means the TL is putting only 135 ft lbs to the ground @ 2,000 RPM. Realistically, most AWD systems cost about 35%, we're talking about 117 ft lbs to the ground.

Even aggressively stating that SH-AWD only loses 25%, a 65 ft-lb disparity at the wheels is *definitely* something you'll notice.

So . . . how's the work coming on that positive displacement blower?

 

Not exactly true. If same engine and the SOHC have the same lob as the DOHC then they should be the same. Traditionally DOHC are for cars running very high rpm 7000K and up, or if you want VTEC on both side of the valves but apparently they did it with SOHC. Normally if you want your engine to have more torque and HP at low end, you will run a long stroke engine or what they call a "stoker". Problem with a big stoker is those engines run out of steam at higher rpm. If you want HP & Torque at high rpm then you need to shorthen the stroke but this will cause you to loose low end torque. I guess what I was trying to say is "Balance". Now all car manufactures have some kind of valve lift system, so it not as noticable any more but in the 90's HONDA VTEC was king!

 

Here are links to the C&D test sheets for G37 6MT and Acura TL 6MT:

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...a5a19cf81a.pdf

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...304a1739aa.pdf

I'll admit my memory was a little off. The Acura is better in 30-50 by .8 sec, and Infiniti better in 50-70 by 1.3 sec. However, that actually implies the Infiniti has better torque up high than the Acura, and Acura has better torque down low.

The street start 5-60 time is telling also. With street start you can't drop the clutch from a high rpm to make up for lack of low end torque.

Also interesting to note, the Acura was tested on all-seasons vs. Infiniti's summer tires; and the Acura was tested with a green engine (ODO reading only 436 miles vs. Infiniti's over 3600 miles).

Given variances in weather conditions between these two tests, I'd say these two cars perform quite similarly despite Acura weight penalty.

What it came down to for me was value - Best deal I could get on a 2010 G37 S 6MT with Nav was only $150 cheaper than the best deal I got on TL SH-AWD 6MT. And, Mayan Bronze w/Umber is a much more interesting color combo than any of those boring shades of gray or fire truck "vibrant red" with black or practically white seats, despite an arguably more traditionally elegant exterior shape on the Infiniti vs. "bold" styling on the Acura.

 

When i was comparing both those cars, the infiniti (g37 journey sedan, premium, nav, wood trim) was $2k cheaper than a TL shawd tech. However, i got a base model.

 

You ever see how they get those low 0-60 times on a AWD car? Its not pretty and its not something your car will survive after numerous launches from dropping the clutch at 6K RPM. I owned a AWD MazdaSpeed6 before my TL and the car was a dog unless launched hard, but then people were having rear diff issues with them starting to leak and cracking.

Launch a RWD or FWD car at 6K and its not as bad on the drivetrain because at least the tires will break traction to save the drivetrain.

And about the fanboy Nissan comment, I have not owned a Nissan since 1996 and that was 1 or 3 turbocharged KA24DET 240sx's in the US at the time. I test drove the Max before I bought my TL and it had a lot more punch. But went with the TL for the luxury.

Id rather pimp around in a 12 second Ferrari than be seen in a 9 second Camaro

 

Ha ha...especially with a stalled tc!

If you're considering a blower down the road, maybe you should get the twin turbo bimmer awd instead. I haven't driven one, but doesn't it have gobs of torque throughout the range? By the time a reliable blower comes out and after install, tuning, supporting mods like exhaust, tranny upgrade etc, you'd have to be close to the price of the bimmer. Plus, isn't the 3.7 a high compression motor? The max boost you could run is probably 3-4lbs. Even then I wouldn't feel safe.

 

That's why the C&D 5-60 street start time is more important for comparison. In that test, the clutch is fully engaged in 1st gear at 5 mph before they go full throttle. Given the G37 6MT is a half second slower from 5-60 than the TL SH-AWD 6MT, the TL has quicker gearing, better low end torque, it's better traction with AWD, or some combination of those things.

But wait: The TL 6MT gives up only .6 seconds 5-60 vs. 0-60 where the G37 6MT gives up .9 seconds. So, in this particular case, the high rpm clutch drop gains a lot more in the rwd Infiniti than the AWD TL. This seems to be another sign the TL has more thrust at lower rpms than the G37, since achieving some wheel spin with the Infiniti with a high rpm clutch drop allows the car to keep the engine in the power band at the higher rpms for achieving much better acceleration numbers.

A little more insight on my point of view for anyone who thinks I'm an Acura fan boy: I truly thought I'd be getting a G37 S 6MT given the MSRP was so much lower than a TL equipped nearly the same way (AWD only for 6MT TL vs. rwd only for 6MT G37). Given the 23 extra peak hp of the G37 and ~250 lb weight difference, I was convinced the TL would feel like a dog compared to the Infiniti. The first test drive was so much the opposite, I thought it was in my head. After two more back to back test drives over about a month time period, nothing changed for me. Then I priced them both (which I wouldn't have done if the Infiniti had performed noticeably better given its 3K lower MSRP), and the rest is history. Too bad Infiniti allows a virtual Infiniti dealership monopoly in central Indiana, if not all over the Midwest, given internet queries within a 400 mile radius still didn't yield a better price...I would have still gone with G37 if the price difference at best and final offer time was the same 3K difference between the MSRPs. I suppose I could also thank "the beak" for pushing more sales incentive to the Acura dealers, although back in March, according to Edmunds, Infiniti had as much, if not more, dealer cash for the 2010 G37 as Acura did for the TL - could be the difference in hold backs, I suppose...

One last little comment: The sales literature for the G37 is still pitching "acceleration swell". As far as I'm concerned, that's how marketers are making lemonade out of the peaky nature of the current G37 engine. There aint no "swell" in my 335i, it's just plain ol' thrust from 1600 to 6000 rpm. I will miss everything about that car except the open diff, the monthly lease payment, questionable reliability that comes from losing oil and coolant, and wondering how much longer my original high pressure fuel pump will last. Neither the TL nor the G37 can approach my 335i in terms of power band performance, but the TL feels closer to me than the G37.

 

I looked at it but nixed it based on several reasons:

1) The BMW AWD system is unacceptably primitive (no torque vectoring rear diff, no LSD front or rear).
2) The operating cost of a BMW is too high.
3) The BMW isn't big enough in interior volume.
4) Personal dislike of BMW dealerships and their employees (no offense intended for dealers/employees).
5) Personal dislike of BMW nickel-ing and dime-ing for every single option.

You could make the argument that a supercharged J37A4 (with supporting mods) would be also be costly to operate but this hasn't been the case on previous generations of supercharged Acuras.

You bring up a good point regarding compression ratio. The J37A4 stock ratio is 11.3:1, which is very lofty for forced induction. The immediate solution is to get a custom-made, thicker, copper head gasket that will bring it down to like 10:1. (This isn't as expensive as it might sound.)

A more costly solution is to get custom pistons made that will take the compression down to like 9:1 - this will allow you to run a lot more boost.

The optimum price/performance point is generally just under the point where stuff downstream in the drivetrain breaks/malfunctions because of the increased torque. The hard and expensive part is figuring out where that point lies.

 

Hell ya!

 

All of the talk about a high rpm clutch drop (especially with AWD) would be ture in the case of the TL 6MT's 0-60 if it allowed for a high rpm clutch dump but most reviews seem to indicate that it only allows up to 4k rpms launch with a limter in place to prevent anything higher.

Without a set rev limit from a stop, the car could run a sub 5 sec 0-60, although at the expense of likely breaking something. As is, it's a pretty good reflection of real world capability with only a moderate launch ability, where most RWD manuals are also launched around when tested anyway.

 

I think it's fair to say if all we were looking for was speed, we'd all have bought Evos' or STI's for the money. The only way to get that kind of speed and keep the kind of package we have is to add another $15,000 or so. There's a reason we're all here gang...

 

I test drove a couple different 335's the past week or two - a 335i and a 335xi. The acceleration is absolutely phenominal in the 335 - much quicker, harder, whatever than the TL. The xi however felt slower than the RWD version. BMW says the 300 ft-lbs the car puts out is constant between 1500-5000 RPM. I haven't dynoed anything I'm just going off what they said.

 

x2. I have an Evo now and it's literally kicking my butt on my 100+ mile days. It's fast, it's fun, but it sucks to drive people around in that car or take any trips over 30 minutes - your ears ring from the noise @ 70 mph.

The other thing to keep in mind is that a turbocharged 2.0L inline 4 *defines* a lack of low end torque. The aforementioned unprotected left is a clutch, transfer case, transmission, differential, and tire eater because of the way you have to launch the Evo.

The Evo and its lack of torque below 3,000 RPM is the reason I started this thread - I want to be sure I won't be plagued with the same problem in my future TL 6 MT.

 

maybe I missed it further back, but have you road tested?

 

Yes, I definitely have. The dealer's test route did not include any uphill, unprotected left turns. Aside from the clutch being disconcertingly smooth (it was hard for me to tell where it engaged), I wasn't able to get on it from a stop.

 

It's certainly fine for a NA V-6 but if you want real torque for the money you probably ought to shot elsewhere.

 

Listen...you're testing a $40,000 plus car and are the one in control. You take the car as far as you want, and in what conditions you want. You drive it until you are satisfied one way or another.

 

+1 on that.

I will say that the clutch engagement feel is one thing that I wish was better. When I have the radio on (normally loud), It's tough to tell by feel what RPM I'm at to ease the clutch pedal out. Having never driven another MT car (this is my first), I don't know what the clutch feel is like on other.

I do love the fact that the takeup (from floor to engagement) seems to be very short. I'm a fan of that.

 

I agree. If current lack of low end torque bothers you now, you should get something you absolutely know has the low end torque you're looking for. If you just settle, 1yr from now, it will really start to bug you.

Do what NJ said and take another test drive...to your left turn area and give it a whirl.

 

Point taken. Thanks!

 

I agree about clutch take-up on the Acura takes a little getting used to. The BMW clutch seems to be more intuitive; but I am not too concerned. My '01 Maxima clutch was like an on/off switch - nothing progressive about it; but I still got accustomed to it over time and could shift smoothly.

Considering aftermarket supercharger for Honda/Acura, I don't quite understand why one would pay thousands for that, void the warranty, etc., vs. going with BMW twin turbo or Audi S4 supercharged from the factory. I have not read or heard about any factory forced induction engine in a passenger car lasting 200,000 miles like a normally aspirated Honda, Nissan, or Toyota engine. I bought a TL for fun plus reliability. Strapping on a supercharger or turbo defeats the reliability part of the equation, IMHO.

 

Well you gotta look at it another way. Not many people these days buy a car brand new and hold on to it til it dies. This is especially true for BMW, Audi, and the like. These manufacturers make their money from leases. Lessees don't care how long a car will last, as long as it doesn't die before the lease is up, and even then its covered under warranty.

 

I recently read something very fascninating in describing an engines ability to generate power & torque...

..."...some engines twist through their powerband and others spin through their power band..."...


I know it is a super simplified explanation, but I do believe in my experience with the "J" that it is a very free spinning motor... whereas the 'VQ' seems to twist and give the feeling of torque.... but the question would be, which can accelerate through its powerband faster....

just a thought....

and about the dyno charts.... if there is indeed torque reduction in the Acura in the first few gears, the the dyno wouldnt reveal this as it is done in 3rd or 4th gear where the gear ratio is as close to 1:1 as possible.....

 

I test drove 335 versus TL multiple times before deciding. Subjectively, I had more fun in the TL when the road was curvy. I had more fun in the 335 when the road was straight. If we could have the N54 engine in a TL, it would be awesome, but we can't and so therein lies the need to make a decision about what's important. That is fundamentally individual and subjective. If you are predominantly interested in low-end torque and straight-line performance, there are better options than either the TL or 335 for substantially less money. For me, the combination of performance, the interior electronics/audio, price, and not having to purchase leather seats as a frickin' OPTION make the TL a better choice. And, oh yeah, it's made in Marysville, OH and Americans need jobs right now!