i really wanted the tl...but unfortunately since its a "hot" new car (and my mom only drives manual) the wait was to long for us...we decided to get a 9-5 aero. its a very nice car, maybe it doesnt have bluetooth, surround sound, and the best navigation system u can get (the tl does), my mom just liked the feel of it. and it is soooo fast, because the turbo can produce more than 272 lb-ft of torque for up to 20 seconds. even though the sticker price is around 41k, we got it for 36k without tax and stuff...u cant pass up a deal like that

 

it's actually not quicker, but congrats on the purchase

 

Good luck, hope you got the ventilated seats!

 

Sorry but it is not quicker in real life. Nice car, but I wouldn't like a 4-cyl. engine sound in this class.

 

Why the rush to buy? You could have held on to your old wheels and banked a month or two's car payments...hope you and your mom enjoy (her?) 9-5.

 

we have a 9 year old honda accord station wagon that would have to undergo a major engine rebuild (because it burns oil like it uses gas) and my mom didnt want to put money into the car if we would be buying a new 1 soon...do u no what the 0-60 times are for both of these...ive been hearing different things about the tl

 

Road & Track got a 0-60 time of 6.7 seconds for the 9-5 aero. The last gen TL (automatic) had a 0-60 time of 6.2 seconds and I really don't see it being any slower, especially the manual which should be in the upper 5's

 

if only these cars were rwd...they would be so much faster

 

If all things are EQUAL why would a RWD TL be faster than a FWD TL. The answer is it wouldn't be.

 

dmac
I am not sure I understand. Your mom "only drives manual"? I would think that she might only drive automatic but not the other way around. Anyway, assuming that you mean, that she only WANTS a manual, there are MT TL's to be had. My dealer in Libertyville had a MT-navi unspoken for on the lot last week. Now if your mom drove both and just liked the feel of the 9-5, and she doesn't mind that Acuras have usually rated higher in quality, then she has made the right decision for her.

Either car should be fast enough 0-60. I think many of us on this forum would like to know exactly HOW fast the TL is.

Sorry to hear about your Accord. Congrats on the new purchase, I'm sure you will be happy with the new ride.

 

yes, it would. when a car accelerates, there is a weight shift to the back....why you can pop wheelies on a bicycle, ya know? That weight shift results in increased pressure on the rear tires, allowing MUCH better grip from a stop on the rear tires than on the front. That is one of the many reasons it is disgustingly easy to squeal the tires on my car (CLS), tho the tires certainly don't help. But, from a stop, a rear wheel drive car has more grip and thus its 0-60 times are almost always better.

 

Notice I said if all things being equal. I know about the shift in weight but Im also taking in to account the added drivetrain loss of having to power the rear wheels to counter the shift in weight.

And I don't think his comment was just 0-60 times...it was more of a blanket statement.

 

rwd will make for better traction on launch and will help "slightly" in acceleration. Definately not "so much faster" as he said.

Actually if you read his first and subsequent posts you'll see he really doesnt know what he is talking about. This thread is a waste of bandwidth.

 

Congrts on purchasing 9-5 Aero..That is a beautiful car with 2.3 turbo 250hp..

 

lol i no what im talking about...i thought it would be funny to title the thread what i did because i wanted to see how you guys would respond...my statement about them being rear wheel drive was based on knowing that as weight shifts to the back wheels (under acceleration) the front wheels arent able to create as much friction. unless u are getting super sticky drag tires, i think my statement is true. to prove this, in either car and driver or road and track there was a cl 6-speed that was fitted with a supercharger, suspension upgrades and better than OEM tires: the car was making at least 330 hp, but could only produce 0-60 times of around 5.4/5.5 seconds. Another 330hp car, even though it is an exceptional one, is the M3; although it may be a little lighter, we all know it runs much faster than a 5.4 0-60. I didnt create the thread just to "waste" your bandwidth