TLisok

My 98 Integra 4 doors 377 horsepower to the wheels 290 torque. best 1/4 miles time 12.21 sec. at 123 mph. I know is not stock

Rodney

This thread is for stock cars, not tricked out Integras.

Xpditor

Do you own one, Mike? IOW- do you speak from experience or conjecture?

I fear no stock V8s just because they're a V8. I look for Mustang 5.0s.

XP

Xpditor

1966 435HP 427ci Corvette
1983 Pontiac TA "Company Car"
1987 Maxda RX-7 Turbo
various motorcycles

None of them by very much except the motorcycles.

XP

Xpditor

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

ali_enterprises

2002 Porsche 911 Turbo - Totalled.

But I still have my Mustang -- But its not stock

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.

missmyprelude

By the way, I've never seen numbers this low published and I read a lot of car mags. Where do the 5.4-5.7 G35 times come from; even the coupe times I've seen are higher than that. The TL times are consistent with what I've seen though.

Republican TL

Ditto.

Nukeman

Porsche

kilrb

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).

VQ35DE

Torque is more tangible than just a "kick in the ass feeling".

RhodeRunner

My G35 was faster.... easily

jjsC5

I agree with this - and I have no bias as I now own a TL (Owned a G35 for 18 months/26,000 miles).

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! BUT 0-60 was only 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.

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.

SitAndMeditate

My M3, just sold her.

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.

NightRider

Yes, G35 and TL are both great cars for highway passing!

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.

brett

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

kilrb

I agree. My 6 speed LT1 could hand my buddy's 5.0 Mustang its ass, but the Mustang actually felt somewhat faster when you rode in or drove it. I still can't explain it. My LT1 had everything on it, torque, hp, gearing... That Mustang just felt like it was pinning you in the seat really hard.

stokdgs

Well, if you drive a 2001-2002 version, they have the M-3 motor, 3.2 litre inline 6, 6 individual throttle bodies like they have in F-1 racing, with 11:5:1 compression and redline at 9,000. If you look at the back end again and notice the rear fender flares covering those enormous stock 9" wheels and tires, and those 4 stainless steel pipes looking at you, it might not seem so ugly. Mine ran a true 170mph before we backed out of it and it still had more left to go.. In a nutshell, instant power, in any gear, never had to downshift on the freeway from 5th, just nail it and it flew!! Oh, and the sound - wow, thats another story for another day DanF

DMZ

1963 Buick Riviera, 325HP, 401CID, 445ft-lbs of torque at 2800 RPM's

R.I.P.

SouthernBoy

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.

missmyprelude

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...

SouthernBoy

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.

brahtw8

jjsC5

Actually, numbers can be deceiving as well. Look at Car & Driver magazine test results. The do a 0-60, AND a rolling 5-60. The reason they do this is because some cars can be launched very hard from a dead stop by dumping the clutch, or brake-torqueing and automatic. Cars with very peaking horsepower curves can be made to accelerate from a dead stop in a manner that most drivers will never do. Also, tubocharged cars can be brought up on full boost using these tricks much more quickly than just stomping on the pedal. C&D came up with the 5-60 test to show what the car does without special launch techniques - what you get just by stomping on the gas from a roll.

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

missmyprelude

The numbers that the mags put out are as close as you can get to "real world" fast without considering the driver and other variables. From what I understand, they don't brake-torque autos, and will usually identify any special launch techniques.

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).

TL_6SPD

You can't go by magazine #s' The actual #s people are producing at the tracks shows the G35 is significantly faster.

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.

svtmike

I don't care which is faster. All I care about is that the TL is fast enough for my driving needs, which do not include racing G35s.

Mike

brahtw8

There have been more than enough bitter TL vs. G35 threads on this forum to last us to the debut of the 4th gen TL . . .

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.

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.

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...

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.

RhodeRunner

Excuses... the numbers speak for themselves and they speak LOUDLY

brahtw8

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.

TL_6SPD

Magazine racer. Real life #s speak for themselves and the truth hurts.

lakeman

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.)