1/4 miles times of a TL is missing the point.

The A4 is a small car. If a small car is preferable to a larger car it would be an advantage, if not a disadvantage...

Using price as a single fixed variable of a multivariable equation leaves an infinite number of solutions... You need to define attributes that are important

 

Sure you can say anything you want since the 6MT is the slow way to go in the 335 & 135. You will not find any dispute about that on the BMW sites starting with BMW. The 6MT is acknowledged to be slower but more fun by the 6MT fans there & in the real world all the top ranked 11 second dual turbos are AT’s.

Bottom line is the slowest of 256 listed 335’s & 107 listed 135’s on Drag Times in the hands of regular drivers ran 13.8 in the quarter mile. That’s 363 actual runs & against that not one 4G TL to back up what you are saying.

This is a 335is pure stock with the drivers first time at the track, you might want to check it against C&D to see what the spread it.


Was chuckling about the 2nd gear start & all the gnashing of teeth & complaining when the first times came out in C&D back when the 4G was released & someone discovered it launched in second gear for the test. Everyone who has a clue including all the record holders launch the 135/335 AT in second gear because it generates the best time.

Maybe we should demand that the magazines redo the tests & use a second gear launch on the 135/335’s

 

Those tests are four model years old. In 4 model years the cars have evolved and the conclusions are no longer valid unless you are comparing circa 2010 vehicles. And the s4 has evolved into a bit of a beast. Of course comparing these vehicles with the dollar spread is a little unfair, but the TL it seems in certain instances can hold its own. Not taking anything away. It is not however a 15k stripped down s4, IMO.

 

Wrong

The S4 has not been noticeably changed from that 2010 test, it is still the B8 series introduced in 2009 with the same engine and power (333 HP) and the 6 speed manual transmission.

The TL has been refreshed for 2012 and, I give you that, Acura took the asinine decision of not offering anymore the High Performance tires as optional (easily remedied).

The cars are different on some aspects and similar on others....the price difference however is difficult to ignore considering that the TL is one size up.....personally I did prefer the TL to the S4, but, obviously, it is highly subjective since I'm a 4G owner...

 

I believe the R&T comparo was actually the best but it's besides the point. No one is changing anything, the problem is many attempt to directly correlate how cars compare in real world, everyday, regular driving situations and styles with how they run at a track.

I think for most drivers, the measure of 5-60 mph should suffice for how cars compare in regular, everyday usage settings, not how effectively they can be launched and how quickly they cross point A and point B, etc. The 335, S4 and TL 6MT, believe it or not, are pretty close in this regard, certainly a lot more in line than 1/4 mile would indicate and that's my point relative to the side discussion here.

So what if the others launch better or accelerate better at speeds one will rarely ever go, when the majority are not going to use it that way, race it or take it to the track. Something like 5-60 would suffice as a basis for that kind of comparison.

Your arguing that the TL 6MT has not been proven enough to make the case that it translates from magazine to track and while that may be worth some discussion, no one is talking strictly track where that would be a factor, we're talking driving to work, driving to the store, merging on the highway, etc. You don't have to believe the 0-60 and 1/4 mile numbers, throw them out of the window as far as I am concerned, now establish a basis between these cars for operating a car normally, not a race setting, what are you going to use instead? Does that make the established basis any less effective because you have not seen it replicated at a track personally?

Frankly, I don't lose sleep over whether my car can do 13.8 or 14.1, insignificant, unless my car and life is only validated at a race track and that is exactly the point about real world, everday driving and that kind of a difference, it's somewhat meaningles but if you still want to get an idea of how cars compare in that setting, you don't use extreme measurements, you use the ones more in line with how you will actually use the vehicle and 0-60 and 1/4 mile are not as suitable there.

As far as the brake torquing, if you took the same car down the track twice, once effectively brake torqued and another not, you will usually get better results brake torqued through and through but it's still the same car, same power, same weight, etc.

Furthermore, many AT tuners add high stall converters which allow their cars to have better rolling starts and achieve better ET's and traps but the car didn't gain any power or drop any weight, in fact, in most cases, it actually adds some weight and robs power, yet still allows the car to "run" faster. So the car appears faster, but at best it is the same and not actually any faster. 1/4 measures are a bit flawed in this way. The car would appear faster at the track but actually be slower in a normal setting. That's one way of exactly how a car might appear faster or slower than they actually are.

So if the TL AT does not brake torque, the apples to apples comparison is to test the car in comparison also not brake torqued, especially since I can't remember a time when someone used brake trorquing for going to and from work. So while it makes it slower in a test, it does not necessarily make it slower. There is a small degree of void where some test results don't mean reality depending on a set of specific circumstances, two nearly identical performing vehicles with one that brake torques and the other does not, would be one of those examples.

That's why there are other measures that remove launching, brake torquing, the roll out effect, large amounts of driver error and are much more in line with normal driving. So it is actually quantifiable if you chose to acknowledge it and it is not any less effective than the extreme measures. IMO it's more reliable for how it correlates to that appropriate driving context than someting like 0-60 and 1/4 mile (even from a track) which can be all over the place and have way more variables. They are not the holy grail they are made out to be, it is just another form of basis for comparison, not that different from a magazine comparo.

Don't need to go to track, don't care, I know for how I use my car, whatever accleration that might be gained in any of the other cars in discussion is insignificant, the other attributes of my car in addition to that point are exactly why I own one, once again trying to tie this all back to the main point of the thread.

 

You might believe what you wrote above about a car with a slow time being just as good as a car with a faster time on the street but the people in the thread pushing the C&D TL times have a different agenda & its all about 0-60 & 1/4 mile times/speeds.

Funny thing about the 0-60 threads here. Going back to the introduction of the up and coming 4G as “most powerful Acura yet” the chatter was all about how the 305bhp TL was going to kick butt & take names.

Then came the poor numbers quickly explained by the very same posters that C&D R&T etc. testers could not drive, the car forced 2nd gear & the times were not important anyway for the reasons you just mentioned above. Then the chatter started all over again when the 6MT was going to redeem the TL’s honor.

They got some good numbers & shazam 0-60 & 1/4 was right back up there as a key component of what the car was all about. Now it looks like a key component against some cars but maybe not others that are quicker.

A little clarification on what a high stall speed converter actually does. As a car is modified with high lift high duration cams the whole power curve shifts toward the top end of the rev range at the expense of the bottom end. This is especially true of low end torque a prime requirement for a hard launch.

The 4500rpm or so converter allows the motor to rev into its natural power band so in of itself it does not add power but it does allow you to add specific speed equipment that does. A high stall speed converter on a stock car would be a total waste of money.

If you did want one, assuming you could adapt one to the lockup system on a TL, the basic limitation on a street driven high stall converter is the RPM at 65mph. In other words the stall speed of the converted can be no higher then the cars RPM @ 65mph ; otherwise you will fry the system due to heat buildup.

BTW I did not bring up the 0-60 – 1/4 mile thingies'. I was just trying to enjoy myself eating popcorn & watching the same old show that has played out too many times to mention. Then SatV had to go out of his way to draw me into the thread asking my thoughts on the Audi to which I responded I would consider the S version. Then some one mentioned the 5 second thing & the expected guys pulled out the magazine tests & SatV again specifically challenged me about 0-60-1/4 times so I responded. Wonder how that 335is vid & magazine tests worked out for him?

So your position might be you don’t care about standing start times etc. but its pretty obvious based on comments made to me in this and other threads that a lot of 4G 6MT drivers do. The C&D numbers are very important to them since they are trotted out & quoted like bible verses in every thread like this. In my case I am not a keyboard racer & prefer to see what the track clocks have to say to me after a run.

Unfortunately outside of some keyboard racing in the forum there is nothing at all on the ”Regular Joe” clocks from the 4G forum members. For that matter nothing on Drag Times either which has the TL flag flown with a few pages of 3G listings.

Maybe the Drag Times listings are just a snap shot of who buys which cars ignoring the badge whore nonsense generally spouted by owners of cars with less brand recognition. Both the 135 & 335 owners are heavily represented at DT. The same goes for airport runs & track days.

The 4G is basically non existent in any of these venues so I would guess most owners are like winstrolvetc, just not interested in testing their skill & the cars performance. Most others are just more confortable racing the keyboard & a very few might actually venture to an event.

 

Inside the S4 explore page in the Audiusa website, it says "For 2013, a new crown-gear center differential on S tronic® models endows quattro® with quicker reactions and added flexibility, while a new electromechanical steering system heightens every sensation."

Don't know if that will help to further improve the performance of the current S4 over it's competitors.

 

And hasn't the horsepower and torque been bumped since 2010?

 

Small modifications but the substance has not changed, the car is the same and the engine is the same...it has not evolved "into a beast".

 

No, it is the same car, same power. The Crown Gear differential shaves about 10 pounds of weight compared to a Torsen and it is cheaper.

 

It does not surprise me a bit that 135i and 335i coupe owners are more interested in drag races and track days than 4G TL owners and that you do not see many of them showing up at these kind of events.....a bit different type of users...

Personally I enjoyed reading about the capability of the car in magazines but I'm not interested in the slightest in racing someone or take my car to the track.....I believe most 4G owners are interested in the blend of sportiness, luxury and comfort.

 

Interesting, after all this time we actually agree on something. 4G owners prefer to keyboard race over specs as opposed to actually going into the arena & seeing what you got.

Real life head to head competing looks to be something the three German brands have in common with pretty good representation from MB & less so from Audi. Expect Audi will field more cars at various events as sales continue to rise.

MB E63 AMG vs. 335i JB4. The Merc jumps the start but the 335 reels him in at the finish of a 1/2 mile airport run. Very good race.

 

There is a lot of people interested in these competition even from Japanese brands...just different vehicles.

A lot of Nissan Z, Infiniti G37, Subaru STI, Lexus IS-F and so on...


The TL SH-AWD is not the king of the hill in power in its size segment.....is not an M or an AMG.


You do not see many 535i, MB E 350, GS 350 or A6 3.0T neither at these event....these are middle weights large sport sedans.

A TL SH-AWD owner knows he cannot compete with a 335i or an S4 in pure acceleration or, in its size class, with a 550 or an M5.

I'm surprised an E Class owner does that sort of thing...but again, that is an AMG model.

 

AMG's in all flavors show up in good numbers at various events, are very fast cars & are very hard to beat at 1/2 mile airport events.

The 535 is not as popular but still has about 20 listings at Drag times. BMS is now making a JB4 for it so I guess that will increase a bit.

The BMW 750/760 series has a few DT listings with the best one of these behemoth Battle Stars knocking down low 13.4 @ 106mph which was a real surprise.

 

The g is way to porky as well imo. I don't care that people track them, it is not a good track vehicle, but a good sporty street vehicle.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to drive the g on a closed course, alone. As you would I'm sure like to drive your TL on a closed course if given the opportunity.

 

Ok, too busy to research. I'll believe you.

 

TL over A4 any day of the week - really isn't an apples to apples comparison to me

 

I could easily around here in Seattle....just I do not have much of an interest....I get my kick just driving it a bit aggressively on the back roads...

 

Personally I think its all great fun no matter what you drive. Back in the bad old days when I was swapping engines in & out of my Corvette as fast as I could build one, when the engine bay was empty, I took my wife's car to Englishtown.

At the time she had a 1984 Fleetwood Brougham with a 135BHP 4.1 liter engine. pushing around 4400lbs of car, quick it wasn’t That being said because I ran it in the bracket races where it thundered through at IIRC 18.50 in the mid 70 mph range almost every time it ran I was able to take home a few trophies with it based on reaction time & good handicap ET selections.

 

But the Quattro drive is NOT the same. The Quattro drive is the crucial part in transferring power to the wheels, and for 2013, it is faster and better.

When someone starts talking about a 0.4 sec difference in lap time, every drivetrain improvement counts.

The difference could now extend to 1 sec or may be 1.5 sec. Who knows ?

The bottom line is that the 2013 S4 has been improved and is no longer the same as the 2010 S4.

 

...and I restate that it is fundamentally the same car, same engine, same power, same chassis.

The Crown differential is not "faster"...it is lighter (and cheaper) and it allows a wider range of front/rear torque split....if that makes the S4 faster is speculation, who knows....the cars should be retested to figure it out.

The new electromechanical steering may have made the driving experience worse and not better (as some tests has revealed for other cars that made the switch, for example the new F30 3 Series)...again, need to be compared.

You read a company statement on their website not an indepent test to evaluate a factual improvement..maybe yes maybe not.

 

This is how the new Crown differential work...there is nothing "faster" about it...

 

^Agreed. I've said it before, the average Joe on the street would kill to drive any of the cars beings debated (3/5 series, A4, A6, S4, TL, G37, C/E Class). We have the luxury and privilege to own them, plus the free time to cyber debate which one is best.

 

If we don't read a company statement on their website about the cars it builds and about the improvements it implements, who do we read ?!

It's definitely not from me or you.

Do you or me or anybody else not working for Audi, know more about Audi vehicles than the automaker Audi itself ? So don't discount it's new features and new improvements too fast, by using speculations and by using other car makers' failures to pass judgement.

The bottom line is still that the 2013 S4 has been improved and is no longer the same as the 2010 S4.

 

Think they are also adding a 7 DCT to the 2013 car which will quicken it up. Our favorite C&D liked the electro steering on the one they drove in Europe at a press preview.

 

FWIW, straight from edmunds.com, and this coming from me being a fan of the S5/RS5:

What's New for 2013

"The 2013 Audi S4 gets electric-assist power steering and minor interior updates, but otherwise carries over unchanged."

IMHO, I'm not sure the electric-assist power steering can be considered an improvement or upgrade. The 2010 MY S4 already has questionable/dead feeling steering, and I'm not sure if the new electric-assist helps in that regard.

 

Exactly what I'm trying to say....

These changes are not fundamental, it's like the 2012 TL adding the 6th gear to the auto transmission....if there is an actual performance improvement on how the 2013 S4 perform on track compared to the MY 2010 is pure matter of speculation.

Furthermore, 2010 MY cars are still fairly new so the comparison is valid, besides we did compare MY 2010 TL vs. 2010 S4......at the time we shopped for our TL (me, docboy and others that did crossshop) these were the cars available.

Now it may be possible that the 2013 S4 with the same engine, same power, same weight and same chassis is capable to fly to the moon and back who knows......

P.S.

The 7 Speed DCT option probably has quickened the S4 both on track and as straight acceleration, however we compared 6 MT with 6 MT.

 

Yes you have a dual clutch available now, obviously we did compare 6 MT with 6 MT.

 

In this vein, fundamentally cars since the model t are still the same.

 

Edmunds.com only posted half of the story.

This is directly taken from Audiusa.com, inside the S4 highlight page :
Because being truly sporty means having the moves to back it up, the S4 comes equipped with a lowered and tightened suspension, the legendary Audi quattro® all-wheel drive for balanced traction, and an available rear sports differential that can actively distribute power laterally across the rear axle. For 2013, a new crown-gear center differential on S tronic® models endows quattro® with quicker reactions and added flexibility, while a new electromechanical steering system heightens every sensation.

Do you really think Edmunds knows more about improvements on Audi vehicles than the automaker Audi itself ? Does Edmunds designs and manufactures the S4 ?

Almost all car mags and internet sites obtain their auto info directly from the auto makers themselves. If Audi didn't tell Edmunds about the new power steering on the 2013 S4, how on earth could Edmunds or any other publishers figure it out by themselves.

So always use the authentic Audi website to obtain the most up-to-date and the most accurate information always, just like we all use the authentic Acura website to obtain new info on our 4G TL's.

I'm more than a fan of Acura but also of Audi. I bought my 1st Acura (2G Integra) back in 1990, and my first Audi (B5 A4) back in 1997. Ever since, there are always an Acura and an Audi sitting in my garage.

I still own a 4G TL and a C6 A6.

There may not be any significant performance gain for the new power steering, but the new crown-gear center differential on S tronic® models endows quattro® with quicker reactions (in Audi's wording), may result in faster delivery of torque distribution in the 2013 S4.

Audi is not stupid. It won't spend precious R&D money creating a new center diff. and a new steering system as well as deliberately stating these new improvements in the S4 highlight section, if there is no real benefit over the old part.


Ok, let's put it this way. Let's cut all speculations.

We don't know if there is an actual performance improvement on how the 2013 S4 (with the new and improved center diff. and power steering) perform on track compared to the MY 2010, other than testing both cars together side by side.

Acura may have also implemented improvements on the 2013 MT TL, when compared to the 2010 MT TL.

But the fact still remains that the 2013 S4 has been improved (new center diff. and new power steering) and is no longer the same as the 2010 S4.

 

Exactly

Also true

Small changes yes, I would not say "no longer the same" as the 2013 TL is still basically the same car as the 2009 with minor changes.

The Crown Gear differential did allow Audi to create its own center differential technology instead of relying on the Torsen (which they do not own the rights), shave few pounds of weight, and being cheaper to produce.
It allows a wider front/rear torque split range compared to the Torsen, so yes it is an improvement which may or may not improve the S4 track numbers.
I suspect the new available 7 Speed Dual Clutch transmission will have more of an impact on the S4 performance than the Crown Gear.

 

I know well that many people are fixated on those types of things and that's great, not knocking it, it's lots of fun and interesting but I'm just pointing out that this is not a drag racing or track and competition thread, the A4 is being compared to a TL here as a whole and the basis of acceleration is included in that, because as far as everyday commuting and uses go, the two are not terribly different in that respect which the OP and most agreed on.

Then it turned into a TL 6MT vs S4 and 335 discussion, where that everyday performance gap is much closer and the TL is even closer to those cars than the A4 is to the TL and people refuse to accept or acknowledge that, don't know why that is exactly. Folks also seem to forget that on comparable tires the TL might actually be a better handling and braking car despite it's larger size and different market, character and demeanor. Or should we throw that out of the window as well because it has not been replicated enough consistently?

We should all just agree to disagree or chalk it up as a who actually knows scenario before we go down the road of my data is better than your data. Or worse, that the lack of evidence (of chosing) is evidence that it can't be true or something to that effect. All silly stubborness IMO and who cares if it is or isn't capable of what, many 4G owners have expressed that we could really care less but I want to know why you are so resistent to the fact that it could be true? Why do you care so much if it is?

Many of us are actually using a somewhat reliable basis, you are just saying because you haven't seen it done here or in this way, it's not happening or didn't actually happen, ignoring the fact that there is also a much smaller sample size compared to boy racer type vehicles. You don't see anything even remotely wrong with that? Is it going to ruin your life to find that a 4G 6MT is not that much slower than a 335 or S4 in 5-60 or that it can indeed run the times it has displayed in a magazine or god forbid it does better? So what? How does that effect you? What is the big deal?

I don't exactly know what you were expecting as far as the 4G at intro but the car started off where the 3G left off and improved on a lot of other areas and the 6MT was a nice performance addition. As an Acura, it's about as good as it gets and that goes for Honda as well.

I think there is big difference in the demographics and even mentality of 3G vs 4G owners, the 3G had a very large boy racer following, the 4G has very little if that. So when folks may have been a little too enthusiastic about it or not as realistic, I think you have your answer as to why. I'm sure the volume of sales and timing has something to do with that as well even if besides the point.

As a mid size luxury vehicle, it is safe to say it does kicks ass and takes names, at least as far as the 6MT, and as a lap car, I believe it does shame several more expensive and much more sport oriented and dedicated sports sedans, that in most cases are smaller, lighter better balanced, and use RWD or supposedly superior sport dedicated platforms and drivetrains, etc.

It seems people just come here without having any of that knowledge of they forget and then begin to talk down or take away and that's both why and when the 4G data is important and can't be stressed enough here, it's not necessarily that 4G owners really care. Sure there are faster cars, there always has been and always will be, doesn't really matter what you own, so what?

If one doesn't care for the TL, you don't have to own one or like it and if you are so convinced that this is a die hard fan based site or section only and many here don't see or accept reality then you don't need to concern yourself with it or anyone here but since we are looking back in time, know that you also had a very very hard time accepting the 5AT 4G SH as anything better than a high 14 sec car, probably still do, simply believeing what you want to as may also be the case now, and when the evidence was brought up to the contrary and also from an actual track and valid source, you still insisted, maybe still do. So before you want to point fingers or label, I suggest you also look at yourself and notice a pattern.

Are you not happy with your vehicle selection? Do you regret not getting a 4G? Are you just continually trying to justify your decision against another TL? What does trying to convince yourself that 4G owners are crazy obsessed fanboys or trying to paint that picture to others do you for you? Is it not acceptable for TL owners to be enthusiasts in of all places, a fan based site? You don't have to answer these questions, I'm only asking them hypothetically to play devil's advocate and figure out what the big deal is, no offense.

If you told me that a 335 did a sub 13 stock at your local track which is faster than most actual times and publications I would say that is awesome and it's a nice car that is also fast, most here would as well, do you notice the difference in your approach instead? Don't know what this fanboy assumption and labelling is all about.

Moving on, it's the example of the stall converter that explains the point of brake torquing vs not, it's not meant to get all technical about drag racing and applications. You don't need to install high lift cams or build some super tuned car to benefit from a higher stall speed or brake torquing, while it may vary depending on the engine character and application, the overall concept I speak of is sound. You may be dancing around the main point, I don't know, but it simply allows a car to run better numbers despite not being faster (or possibly slower) because it allows for better running starts because 1/4 mile measures are never truly measured from a stop, the roll out is necessary to remove reaction time, so you cross TWO points and it is essentially done from a rolling start and not a true standstill.

You may prefer to see what a clock reads and in real time which is fine, even honorable but as I already went over, it's also not a perfect format, not saying there is one but for the basis of just comparing, paper stats also suffice as timeslips are also just a basis.

I mean if some throw out the best numbers they can find regardless of where they come from, are you not supposed to also use the best numbers in return? There is always many factors to consider but for use as a baseline or simple basis, without getting all into it, or trying to determine how easy or difficult it would be for average joe to replicate the results at a track, I would think that a magazine comparo done side by side or close enough would be as or a bit more reliable than independent results and what it says should more than suffice for this type of discussion of relative performance especially for normal use. You don't think some of the responses here have been a bit overkill and a large stretch for what the data is needed for?

As far as what Saturno said, for me it seemed a bit warranted. If you're gonna stir the pot or imply your opinions that are unrelated, you might as well actually contribute something to the thread. As far as everything else there, can't really comment on, don't really care to either.

 

..What is that supposed to mean???

 

Since most all of your post is opinion but has one paragraph that sites numbers lets just go to the C&D numbers for 2012. And yes after all these years I still believe the TL auto even with the improved 6AT is a high 14 second car.

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

ENGINE TYPE: SOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection
Displacement: 223 cu in, 3664 cc
Power: 305 hp @ 6300 rpm
Torque: 273 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

As for the posts about timings ect I just find the responses interesting. I stick to the facts, don’t call anybody names & don’t get into speculation about what might be if this or that was different because the other cars can change as well .

As for my buying decision I am pretty happy with my 335is & have a Boy Racer 135is 6MT convertible sitting on a dock in Bremerhaven waiting on shipping to the BMW performance driving school in South Carolina.

Some of you might find me a PIA but on the other side I have gotten 68 “Thank Yous" which I think is more then some of my more die hard detractors so I must be making some small contribution here.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by winstrolvtec

Then it turned into a TL 6MT vs S4 and 335 discussion, where that everyday performance gap is much closer and the TL is even closer to those cars than the A4 is to the TL and people refuse to accept or acknowledge that, don't know why that is exactly.

Because picking a smattering of performance results from various sources or citing a 4 model year old article doesn't make any sense at this point, imo. A car having 325hp/300+ torque is only a tenth or so second faster than the bigger bulkier less powerful TL. Doesn't seem reasonable; which is why there is a lot of discussion around it.

Quote:

Is it going to ruin your life to find that a 4G 6MT is not that much slower than a 335 or S4 in 5-60 or that it can indeed run the times it has displayed in a magazine or god forbid it does better? So what? How does that effect you? What is the big deal?

There is no big deal, but defining "not that much" is difficult. To me "not that much" is 2 seconds.

Quote:

As a mid size luxury vehicle, it is safe to say it does kicks ass and takes names, at least as far as the 6MT, and as a lap car, I believe it does shame several more expensive and much more sport oriented and dedicated sports sedans, that in most cases are smaller, lighter better balanced, and use RWD or supposedly superior sport dedicated platforms and drivetrains, etc.

I think this is what the discussion is all about. There is a lot of disagreement regarding exactly what butts were kicked and what names were taken.

Quote:

If you told me that a 335 did a sub 13 stock at yourlocal track which is faster than most actual times and publications I would saythat is awesome and it's a nice car that is also fast, most here would as well,do you notice the difference in your approach instead? Don't know what thisfanboy assumption and labelling is all about.

I think if there were a consistent set of time slip from track events over time, it would make a difference in people's minds; regardless of what the rags reported. This comment really applies across the board.

This is the crux of the issue...right? If one of the mags were to take these vehicles, line them up on a runway, and on the count of three floor it. Do this 5 times, average out the results and report the best/worst/average results.

So now you can see the video, know the vehicles were tested in the same manner, same time, altititude and temperature. Would sure give a different perspective.

Then for yucks run said vehicles around a track for 10 laps and report on the results. Sure sounds like the wheat would separate from the chaff with this type of testing. Instead of running the vehicles around orange cones or driving them in a circle.

 

@Bear-And that is one source for the 2012 where I was speaking of the 09, but if I gave you two others that are valid and suggest otherwise would you accept it? Probably not and that is the point but I'll let you comment. Then if I said it was from a track, you might start the, well it's a fast track and it was cold out stuff, it would never end.

The 09 TL 5AT did 14.3 and 98-99 at an actual track performed by Jeff at Temple of Vtec and in a R&T comparo against the VW CC, it also did a 14.4, 0-60 in 5.9 and that is without brake torquing in both examples which would otherwise shave some both on paper and at the track. Can post links later if you need.

As for the 2012 which added a 6AT, I don't know if was detuned in the name of fuel but I have seen only one test and no track results so the sampling is limited to one source but it may very well be all it does, need more to go off of but the point would be that if it's only one sample you would probably not consider anything otherwise and the fact that the 6AT has shaved a significant amount of time off other Acura and Honda models so it may warrant further investigation as does how the 6MT might translate to an avergage driver a track but.

I didn't suggest that you do not contribute or positively as a whole, just that before you did here in this thread, you decided to take a jab before posting anything relavent to the topic. What's up with that?

 

It is because I ran 14.9 at the track in my 2012 6AT SH-AWD TL with only around 600-1000 miles.

 

Back when I was pure stock had a chance to run a few 4G because for what ever reason they were trying to line up against me. Guess it was the magazine numbers or they wanted to see what an IS was. Runs were a joke & was all over before we crossed the intersection. Tried pacing one before I went to WOT & still felt they were high 14 second cars since it did not take any real effort to keep his bumper on my front wheel for 2 gears before went to WOT & drove away. I have not bothered to go out against them again since the risk of a ticket is just not worth it.

That being said if anyone around here is interested will make an exception.

You can site anything you want but we are talking about a current road test by C&D who the in the minds of some here when it posted 5.1 or 5.2 as the ultimate authority.

Did a quick research for some Average Joe AT times & found 3 listings:

14.4 99.4

14.6 96.0

14.8 96.7

Cars were pretty much stock with CAI + Michelin SS tires (good choice)

 

Don't know what your track experience is but with more miles & more runs car will log better ETs. My post above shows there is more headroom on your ET.

 

Sunney South - Snow from yesterday has melted off the streets will give everyone a break & go away for a while. But I'LL BE BACK