Has anyone here owned a stock car faster than the 6M 04 TL
#43
Originally Posted by Mike_TX
Uhhh ... the car mags I take all put the TL at about 6.2 sec. 0-60. Don't believe those 5.8 figures on a car of this weight and hp ... that's getting into serious V-8 territory.
Mike
Mike
I fear no stock V8s just because they're a V8. I look for Mustang 5.0s.
XP
#45
Originally Posted by TL_6SPD
5.4-5.7 0-60 G35 6MT, TL 5.8-6.2 6mt
1/4 times are pretty much equal, but to what I see so far, it seems the TL isn't performing like the tests show when people take it to the track.
1/4 times are pretty much equal, but to what I see so far, it seems the TL isn't performing like the tests show when people take it to the track.
According to the post above, C&D got a 5.6 0-60 for the TL. That puts it about the same as G35- close enough to be a driver's race, anyway.
If you talking about a couple of guys like flnsx that took their TL to the track....
Remember that one had only 800 miles on the car and still didn't know how to drive it for max performance. Another would not take it to red line.
I don't think they are truly representative of the TL's potential after break-in and driven for max performance.
I do love the the VQ35 engine, though. It's got the low end grunt.
XP
#47
Almost all of the mags I've seen put the TL and G35 about the same (some with the TL edging out the G35, others with the G35 edging out the TL). However, the G35 must be faster because TL_6SPD says so. hehehe (kidding of course)
No really, the figures I've seen seem to say that the cars are very equal. Each individual car may even differ slightly from others. Also, environmental factors and driver skill play a big part. Not to mention transmission choice, tire choice, etc, etc, etc.
Regardless of what anyone says, the fact that these cars are in the same ballpark as far as performance specs that the mags publish tells me that it's too close to call - neither car is necessarily "faster". The higher torque in the G35 and the RWD may give less experienced drivers an edge. However, since all of the mag drivers are experienced, and the numbers are close, that tells me that the cars themselves are pretty equal.
Also, the fact that a car "feels" faster is very deceiving and not a good measure. This is also probably a result of higher torque cars giving more of a "kick in the ass" feeling when accelerating.
No really, the figures I've seen seem to say that the cars are very equal. Each individual car may even differ slightly from others. Also, environmental factors and driver skill play a big part. Not to mention transmission choice, tire choice, etc, etc, etc.
Regardless of what anyone says, the fact that these cars are in the same ballpark as far as performance specs that the mags publish tells me that it's too close to call - neither car is necessarily "faster". The higher torque in the G35 and the RWD may give less experienced drivers an edge. However, since all of the mag drivers are experienced, and the numbers are close, that tells me that the cars themselves are pretty equal.
Also, the fact that a car "feels" faster is very deceiving and not a good measure. This is also probably a result of higher torque cars giving more of a "kick in the ass" feeling when accelerating.
#48
Originally Posted by TL_6SPD
5.4-5.7 0-60 G35 6MT, TL 5.8-6.2 6mt
1/4 times are pretty much equal, but to what I see so far, it seems the TL isn't performing like the tests show when people take it to the track.
1/4 times are pretty much equal, but to what I see so far, it seems the TL isn't performing like the tests show when people take it to the track.
#51
1994 LT1 Z-28 w/ 6spd. 275 horse, 325 torque, about 3,300#'s. Supposed to run about 5.4 0-60, 14.0 @ 100 stock. I threw some headers and CAI on it, and it was a great running car! For it's day, it was sweet, just crushing the current Mustangs. Really, the only thing it had on the TL stock was RWD. I'd bet the TL would hang on the move. Hell, the TL even pulls the same .88 around the skidpad (with the sport tires).
#52
Pro
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: Somerset, NJ
Originally Posted by missmyprelude
Almost all of the mags I've seen put the TL and G35 about the same (some with the TL edging out the G35, others with the G35 edging out the TL). However, the G35 must be faster because TL_6SPD says so. hehehe (kidding of course)
No really, the figures I've seen seem to say that the cars are very equal. Each individual car may even differ slightly from others. Also, environmental factors and driver skill play a big part. Not to mention transmission choice, tire choice, etc, etc, etc.
Regardless of what anyone says, the fact that these cars are in the same ballpark as far as performance specs that the mags publish tells me that it's too close to call - neither car is necessarily "faster". The higher torque in the G35 and the RWD may give less experienced drivers an edge. However, since all of the mag drivers are experienced, and the numbers are close, that tells me that the cars themselves are pretty equal.
Also, the fact that a car "feels" faster is very deceiving and not a good measure. This is also probably a result of higher torque cars giving more of a "kick in the ass" feeling when accelerating.
No really, the figures I've seen seem to say that the cars are very equal. Each individual car may even differ slightly from others. Also, environmental factors and driver skill play a big part. Not to mention transmission choice, tire choice, etc, etc, etc.
Regardless of what anyone says, the fact that these cars are in the same ballpark as far as performance specs that the mags publish tells me that it's too close to call - neither car is necessarily "faster". The higher torque in the G35 and the RWD may give less experienced drivers an edge. However, since all of the mag drivers are experienced, and the numbers are close, that tells me that the cars themselves are pretty equal.
Also, the fact that a car "feels" faster is very deceiving and not a good measure. This is also probably a result of higher torque cars giving more of a "kick in the ass" feeling when accelerating.
#55
Originally Posted by VQ35DE
Torque is more tangible than just a "kick in the ass feeling".
EDIT: I test drove both the MT/AT G35 and TL's, comparing similar versions of both cars:
Did the AT G35 feel faster? Yes, it has more torque. Was it? Maybe slightly. Did the MT G35 feel faster? Yes, it has more torque. Was it? I don't think so, about the same. The G35 felt faster, but the needle in the TL pulled to 60 just as quick.
#57
Pro
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
From: Somerset, NJ
Originally Posted by NightRider
Awhile ago I drove my Fathers 1993 Dodge Ram turbodiesel, something like 325 HP/400 torque. Damn that thing felt great when you stepped on the gas! 0-60 was around 8 seconds. Torque feels fast, but it's the combination of HP/Torque/Vehicle weight, along with some other factors that determines speed. As a fair basis, HP helps more with top end speed while torque helps more with stand still acceleration. This is why the TL is great in high rpms but not so great off the line.
Rule of thumb:
Torque gets you going and HP keeps you going.
#58
Originally Posted by VQ35DE
The fun part about a relatively wide torque-band is being able to accelerate hard under PT. Quick passing to overtake slower vehicles only requires PT or less with the VQ35DE. But if you have to wind it up, it's more than up to the task.
Rule of thumb:
Torque gets you going and HP keeps you going.
Rule of thumb:
Torque gets you going and HP keeps you going.
#59
Originally Posted by VQ35DE
Torque is more tangible than just a "kick in the ass feeling".
In order for me to trust anyone's judgement of "fast", I need to see some numbers. Seat of the pants opinions don't count for much. Some cars are a given. However, there are a few people on this board that say the G35 is "much" faster, but the numbers that I've seen just don't show that. It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I don't like empty statements like "my car is faster" when it really isn't.
#60
1992 Dodge Stealth Twin Turbo
1995 BMW M3
2001 Audi S4
I also had a
1985 Porsche 911
1985 Porsche 928 AT
but I think those two cars would be in a dead heat with the TL.
oh, and the quickest vehicle of all...
1993 Honda CBR600F2
1995 BMW M3
2001 Audi S4
I also had a
1985 Porsche 911
1985 Porsche 928 AT
but I think those two cars would be in a dead heat with the TL.
oh, and the quickest vehicle of all...
1993 Honda CBR600F2
#61
Originally Posted by missmyprelude
My only point was that a car with more torque may tend to feel faster.
In order for me to trust anyone's judgement of "fast", I need to see some numbers. Seat of the pants opinions don't count for much. Some cars are a given. However, there are a few people on this board that say the G35 is "much" faster, but the numbers that I've seen just don't show that. It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I don't like empty statements like "my car is faster" when it really isn't.
In order for me to trust anyone's judgement of "fast", I need to see some numbers. Seat of the pants opinions don't count for much. Some cars are a given. However, there are a few people on this board that say the G35 is "much" faster, but the numbers that I've seen just don't show that. It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I don't like empty statements like "my car is faster" when it really isn't.
#62
Originally Posted by VQ35DE
I just saw a used one for sale here at Bridgewater Acura; I'd like to try it out but that rear end is truly butt ugly (pardon the pun). Did you ever run yours at the track?
#64
Quickest car I've ever ridden in was a friend's 1969 Camaro about three years ago. He got rid of his BMW and bought the Camaro because he thought he wanted to put it on the drag strip. He wound up just driving it on the street until he sold it.
It had a 454 Chevy with a Comp Cam (not sure which one), tunnel ram intake with two 850 spread bore Holley Dominators. But it had the smaller valve heads (guy he bought if from switched the heads before selling it), and only a 3.73 rear end. But it cranked out a littlle over 600 HP and close to that number in the torque catagory. A low 10's car, it's 0-60 times were in the 3 second bracket.
Next comes a 1998 Mustang SVT with suspension and tires, and a Kenny Bell supercharger. 11.3's for that one.
Then a 1967 L-71 427/435 Tri-Power Corvette with open chamber (under the body not the side pipes) exhaust and an after market cam putting all that Chevy power through 4.11 gears.
After those, a host of others two of which were mine.
It had a 454 Chevy with a Comp Cam (not sure which one), tunnel ram intake with two 850 spread bore Holley Dominators. But it had the smaller valve heads (guy he bought if from switched the heads before selling it), and only a 3.73 rear end. But it cranked out a littlle over 600 HP and close to that number in the torque catagory. A low 10's car, it's 0-60 times were in the 3 second bracket.
Next comes a 1998 Mustang SVT with suspension and tires, and a Kenny Bell supercharger. 11.3's for that one.
Then a 1967 L-71 427/435 Tri-Power Corvette with open chamber (under the body not the side pipes) exhaust and an after market cam putting all that Chevy power through 4.11 gears.
After those, a host of others two of which were mine.
#65
It's just scary how fast some of the muscle cars of the late 60s/early 70s were. Plus, they didn't have the brakes and suspension to match the engine. I think I'd be afraid to drive one of those things fast (I like to know that I can stop or manuever quickly enough to avoid problems). Kudos to the brave souls that do. There was a show on the Speed Channel recently where they ran some of the most powerful stock cars of this era in a comparison (1/4mi, braking, slalom). The 1/4mi times were incredible, the braking and slalom were just plain scary...
#66
To missmyprelude;
The brakes in my 1966 L34 SS 396/360 Chevelle were actually very good. I ordered the car (took 4 weeks and 2 days to get it - I still have my copy of the order form!) and when I did, I specified sintered metallic brake linings. These linings were not shipped in too many cars because they were a little known option.. like $36.10 is all they ran. But they were good for over 100,000 miles and boy would they stop that car. The hotter they got, the better they worked. In fact, the owner's manual suggested that on cold days, after first starting your car in the morning, you should "drag" your brakes for maybe a block to heat them up.
When I first took the drums off to inspect them, I got a bit of a shock. They were not shoes like you would see on standard drum brakes, but eight individual pads, split in the middle. They were superb brakes for drums.
But you're right about the suspension and brakes on a car like the TL. Other than the fact that the suspension on the Chevelle was quite a bit stronger than that on the TL, the Chevelle would not be able to match the TL in the corners.
The brakes in my 1966 L34 SS 396/360 Chevelle were actually very good. I ordered the car (took 4 weeks and 2 days to get it - I still have my copy of the order form!) and when I did, I specified sintered metallic brake linings. These linings were not shipped in too many cars because they were a little known option.. like $36.10 is all they ran. But they were good for over 100,000 miles and boy would they stop that car. The hotter they got, the better they worked. In fact, the owner's manual suggested that on cold days, after first starting your car in the morning, you should "drag" your brakes for maybe a block to heat them up.
When I first took the drums off to inspect them, I got a bit of a shock. They were not shoes like you would see on standard drum brakes, but eight individual pads, split in the middle. They were superb brakes for drums.
But you're right about the suspension and brakes on a car like the TL. Other than the fact that the suspension on the Chevelle was quite a bit stronger than that on the TL, the Chevelle would not be able to match the TL in the corners.
#68
Originally Posted by missmyprelude
My only point was that a car with more torque may tend to feel faster.
In order for me to trust anyone's judgement of "fast", I need to see some numbers. Seat of the pants opinions don't count for much. Some cars are a given. However, there are a few people on this board that say the G35 is "much" faster, but the numbers that I've seen just don't show that. It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I don't like empty statements like "my car is faster" when it really isn't.
In order for me to trust anyone's judgement of "fast", I need to see some numbers. Seat of the pants opinions don't count for much. Some cars are a given. However, there are a few people on this board that say the G35 is "much" faster, but the numbers that I've seen just don't show that. It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I don't like empty statements like "my car is faster" when it really isn't.
A perfect example of how this can help a car is the Subaru WRX or Mitsubishi EVO. Between the turbo system and all wheel drive, they can turn 0-60 and 1/4 mile times that indicate that the car is much quicker than they really are just because they can hook so well from a dead stop. But looking at the 1/4 mile trap speed indicates that in real world driving, they really are only slightly faster than a TL.
This is also why the G35 is a faster car than the TL. Flat out through the gears they may have similar times. But real world fast in normal driving includes accelerating from different speeds as you move through traffic, pull out to pass etc. That is where the low to mid range torque actually does make the car faster in many situations
#69
Originally Posted by jjsC5
This is also why the G35 is a faster car than the TL. Flat out through the gears they may have similar times. But real world fast in normal driving includes accelerating from different speeds as you move through traffic, pull out to pass etc. That is where the low to mid range torque actually does make the car faster in many situations
So, I guess the G35 is "faster" than an S2000 too since that thing has like no torque. To me, cars with higher torque are easier to drive fast (i.e. just stomp on the gas), but that doesn't make them "faster". Higher reving, high horsepower cars typically take a bit more driving finesse, but may still get you where you're going faster. To me, getting where you're going faster means the car is faster.
"real world fast" depends more on the driver than anything. Performance numbers taken in a controlled environment tell me how "fast" a car really is (or can be).
#70
Originally Posted by missmyprelude
My only point was that a car with more torque may tend to feel faster.
In order for me to trust anyone's judgement of "fast", I need to see some numbers. Seat of the pants opinions don't count for much. Some cars are a given. However, there are a few people on this board that say the G35 is "much" faster, but the numbers that I've seen just don't show that. It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I don't like empty statements like "my car is faster" when it really isn't.
In order for me to trust anyone's judgement of "fast", I need to see some numbers. Seat of the pants opinions don't count for much. Some cars are a given. However, there are a few people on this board that say the G35 is "much" faster, but the numbers that I've seen just don't show that. It doesn't really matter to me either way, but I don't like empty statements like "my car is faster" when it really isn't.
#71
Originally Posted by TL_6SPD
You can't go by magazine #s' The actual #s people are producing at the tracks shows the G35 is significantly faster.
To be honest, the numbers are meaningless to me. I just like to bring them up when someone posts stuff they have no facts to back up.
#74
Originally Posted by missmyprelude
OK, show me the time slips for two qualified drivers - one in a stock G35 6MT and one in a stock TL 6MT (not EL42) at the same location at the same time. If the 1/4mi times are consistently and significantly in favor of the G35, then I might start believing this speal. Until then, the numbers that professional drivers have put up under controlled conditions are all I (or anyone else) can (and should) go by.
To be honest, the numbers are meaningless to me. I just like to bring them up when someone posts stuff they have no facts to back up.
To be honest, the numbers are meaningless to me. I just like to bring them up when someone posts stuff they have no facts to back up.
6MT, haven;t seen a TL run past mid 14s yet. Mine ran 14.3 bone stock with hardly any miles and 90 degree weather. I have seen others run 14.1 in the Sedan as well stock at 99-101 traps.
The #s that are posted in magazines are not in controlled conditions. lol. Enviroments changed, testing conditions are different, etc. Unless they are run at the SAME TIME AND PLACE, then you can't compare. But per this site and the G35 so far the G35 is still faster.
#75
Originally Posted by TL_6SPD
I am not going to waste my time to post links when others know its obviously faster. When the Auto G35s are running mid 14s and the TL LOW 15s to high 14s on a good day. Autos.
.
.
Originally Posted by TL_6SPD
6MT, haven't seen a TL run past mid 14s yet. Mine ran 14.3 bone stock with hardly any miles and 90 degree weather. I have seen others run 14.1 in the Sedan as well stock at 99-101 traps.
.
.
Originally Posted by TL_6SPD
The #s that are posted in magazines are not in controlled conditions. lol. Enviroments changed, testing conditions are different, etc. Unless they are run at the SAME TIME AND PLACE, then you can't compare. But per this site and the G35 so far the G35 is still faster.
#76
Originally Posted by missmyprelude
Yeah, stupid me. When I think of fast cars, I think of MTs, not ATs. So, my basis of comparing these two cars are the fastest TL sedan vs. the fastest G35 sedan. In this case the 6MTs (and the TL with the RE030s). I'm not considering the A-spec, since this adds several thousand onto the TL and out of the comparison in my opinion.
Actually, there's a guy on another TL forum that posted his time slip in a stock 6MT TL (I have to take his word for it, but based on his posts, he seems legit). He did a 14.2 1/4. This is the only 6MT slip I could find. I didn't see any G35 slips, but if the best you've seen is 14.1, that's hardly evidence that the G35 is faster. Again, too close to call.
Like I said, Car & Driver had both cars in the same place at the same time (the only one I've seen). The 6MT TL posted a 5.8 (0-60) and 14.5 (1/4mi), while the 6MT G35 did the same in 6.3 and 14.6. Then again, the professional drivers at C&D probably don't know how to launch a G35, I'm guessing. Plus, it was probably the slowest G35 on the planet. lol. All in good fun...
Actually, there's a guy on another TL forum that posted his time slip in a stock 6MT TL (I have to take his word for it, but based on his posts, he seems legit). He did a 14.2 1/4. This is the only 6MT slip I could find. I didn't see any G35 slips, but if the best you've seen is 14.1, that's hardly evidence that the G35 is faster. Again, too close to call.
Like I said, Car & Driver had both cars in the same place at the same time (the only one I've seen). The 6MT TL posted a 5.8 (0-60) and 14.5 (1/4mi), while the 6MT G35 did the same in 6.3 and 14.6. Then again, the professional drivers at C&D probably don't know how to launch a G35, I'm guessing. Plus, it was probably the slowest G35 on the planet. lol. All in good fun...
They don't. It was obvious by the way they launched it.
#77
Racer
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
From: RI
Originally Posted by TL_6SPD
Watch C&D on TV and see how they actually tested teh G35. They didn't even break the tires loose or launched it hard. The TL spun, the IS300 spun. And to date, that was the worse 0-60 time the G35 has ever gotten in any test.
They don't. It was obvious by the way they launched it.
They don't. It was obvious by the way they launched it.
#78
There are plenty of existing TL vs. G35 threads, people.
This one was intended to be different. Lets try to get off the G35 debate and focus only on cars that are SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the TL.
This one was intended to be different. Lets try to get off the G35 debate and focus only on cars that are SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the TL.
#80
My 1988 911 was much faster - out of the chute. Thats what a rear engine car gives you - a real good launch. IMHO, however, I would bet my 6MT TL would easily beat it to 100, but be about even at 60. Thats what Vtech gives you - top end power - almost like a turbo. (I like my TL much better than my 911 - it doesn't do "end arounds" when you get overzealous.)