Motor Trend favors A4 over TL...
05-15-2009, 11:26 AM
#81
WTF?! So you expect sports cars to be as quiet as a Buick?! You think people who buy cars like the M3 complain about the noise? Have you driven anything sportier than a TSX? The S4 does not even belong in the same class as the M3! Look.....M3: 414hp V8, curb weight: 3700 lbs.....S4: 333 hp V6, curb weight: 3900+ lbs........it doesn't take a genius to figure out which car is the better performer. The only Audi that competes in the same segment as the M3 is the RS4, but that car costs $20K more than the M3. Many BMW dealers are actually selling M3's now below MSRP, so the S4 will be at an even bigger disadvantage when it finally shows up.
First S4 has 30 ft-lb of more torque available across wide band. and weight of S4 is similar to A4 3.2/BMW 535/M3 sedan.
Audi is claiming 5.1 second. I am sure Magazines can pull around 4.4 to 4.5second with excellent passing/mergin and quarter miles times like M3. Anything faster than this is law of diminishing returns.
Compact power plant
TFSI makes the 3.0 l V6 a compact power plant with an early peak torque of 440 Nm – and with moderate fuel consumption. Its ample torque curve is most impressive: 90% of torque is available across an engine speed range from 2,200 to 5,900 rpm. With a very spontaneous response and an extraordinary power flow across the entire rpm range, the six-cylinder unit gives you totally responsive driving.
Experience extremely sporty performance and an outstanding start that speaks for itself: the Audi S4 accelerates from 0 to 62 mph in 5.1 seconds and still has abundant power reserves beyond this mark. Just as you would expect of a model with the S badge.
Fuel consumption and emissions data:
Fuel consumption: manual 29.1 mpg (9.7 l/100km), CO2 = 225 g/km
S tronic 30.1 mpg (9.4 l/100km), CO2 = 219 g/km
TFSI makes the 3.0 l V6 a compact power plant with an early peak torque of 440 Nm – and with moderate fuel consumption. Its ample torque curve is most impressive: 90% of torque is available across an engine speed range from 2,200 to 5,900 rpm. With a very spontaneous response and an extraordinary power flow across the entire rpm range, the six-cylinder unit gives you totally responsive driving.
Experience extremely sporty performance and an outstanding start that speaks for itself: the Audi S4 accelerates from 0 to 62 mph in 5.1 seconds and still has abundant power reserves beyond this mark. Just as you would expect of a model with the S badge.
Fuel consumption and emissions data:
Fuel consumption: manual 29.1 mpg (9.7 l/100km), CO2 = 225 g/km
S tronic 30.1 mpg (9.4 l/100km), CO2 = 219 g/km
quattro with sports differential
'Vorsprung durch Technik' never stands still. This principle is also the basis of quattro with sports differential. It combines the advantages of quattro technology with a completely new differential that accelerates the rear wheels individually. In this way the Audi S4 is noticeably more agile, especially when cornering. When steering into and accelerating out of bends, power is diverted to the outside rear wheel. You can control the response characteristic of quattro with sports differential individually with Audi drive select.
05-15-2009, 12:52 PM
#82
Intermediate
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but the new S4 is fail, IMHO, just due to the cost and lack of performance.
2009 335i base MSRP "From $40.9k" (yes, I know BMW overcharges for options)
2009 S4 base MSRP "estimated $49k"
S4 0-62 (100kph) are 5.1 and 5.3, according to this :
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=134769
They also note understeer still present, and the elephant in the room is the total lack of comment of it being a competent answer to the 335i.
The A4/S4 are decent cars IMHO, but horribly overpriced. The G35 and G37 walk all over the A4 for the same or less $, and the 335i walks all over the S4 for the same or less $.
2009 335i base MSRP "From $40.9k" (yes, I know BMW overcharges for options)
2009 S4 base MSRP "estimated $49k"
S4 0-62 (100kph) are 5.1 and 5.3, according to this :
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=134769
They also note understeer still present, and the elephant in the room is the total lack of comment of it being a competent answer to the 335i.
The A4/S4 are decent cars IMHO, but horribly overpriced. The G35 and G37 walk all over the A4 for the same or less $, and the 335i walks all over the S4 for the same or less $.
05-15-2009, 02:17 PM
#83
Sorry, but the new S4 is fail, IMHO, just due to the cost and lack of performance.
2009 335i base MSRP "From $40.9k" (yes, I know BMW overcharges for options)
2009 S4 base MSRP "estimated $49k"
S4 0-62 (100kph) are 5.1 and 5.3, according to this :
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=134769
They also note understeer still present, and the elephant in the room is the total lack of comment of it being a competent answer to the 335i.
The A4/S4 are decent cars IMHO, but horribly overpriced. The G35 and G37 walk all over the A4 for the same or less $, and the 335i walks all over the S4 for the same or less $.
2009 335i base MSRP "From $40.9k" (yes, I know BMW overcharges for options)
2009 S4 base MSRP "estimated $49k"
S4 0-62 (100kph) are 5.1 and 5.3, according to this :
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=134769
They also note understeer still present, and the elephant in the room is the total lack of comment of it being a competent answer to the 335i.
The A4/S4 are decent cars IMHO, but horribly overpriced. The G35 and G37 walk all over the A4 for the same or less $, and the 335i walks all over the S4 for the same or less $.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=136254
5.1 second is manufacturer figures for S4. I am sure actual tests will yield results closer to 4.5 to 4.6 second. S4 is 4 door with more refinement, interiorspace, ,looks and boot space and amenities. Thats what counts as can buy certain V8 sedans or Mitsu Evo in mid 30 prices for similar handling and performance. For $60K car u need looks, refinement in addition to pure performance.
05-15-2009, 02:19 PM
#84
Entry Level would define the TSX so no it's not at entry level like the A4. Better quality doesn't always equal more functionality. What is the point of paying for more when it can't be used and doesn't produce anything better than someone's subjective opinion. Honda/Acura = value without the lose of functionality, sometimes more, for example, recent crash test ratings and resale value, without a doubt making it the best financial car purchase one can make. Don't confuse competing as being at the same level, for what your views are, I can compete in the NYC marathon, it doesn't mean I am going to win, but did I not compete?, does that help the thought process? The A4 is often looked at as being last in class as far as German make, but it's a nice car just for different reasons, does that mean it doesn't compete there? If I bought an E/5/A6 bone stock, base price, I mean with nothing vs TL SH loaded, which is now the better overall car? Until Audi does add a replacement for the A4 3.2 than the segments would likely be moving down, where than in turn would be very successful, or they could continue to market above and charge similar prices if not more, up there, for less product and not be very effective, but we can't predict the future so. I would like an answer to this question, if the new RL comes out and is aimed at the higher segment but for less money, are those the grounds to descredit it and move it back down? Where they will be aimed is completely different than where people feel it should compete, or in other words it's not of the same "quality", if it is worst in class by many opinions, those people don't have to buy one, but that is where it is going to compete. I understand that may piss off a few people, maybe those who own a 7, S,or S8 that have had to pay the gold price of admission for years, to now have Honda being allowed to let poeple in the door with the bronze membership instead, but too bad, it was only a matter of time. When those type of vehicles first came out did they charge for it having the badge or did they charge becuase they were the only thing like it, you know size, luxury, features, and comfort, etc, et. So if a company now can make the same type of car for less, does it not compete becuase of brand or becuase of vehicle type?
One last very important qeustion Cp, one man to another, are you actually going to buy that entry level Audi or just brag about it pointlessly here in the Acura forum?
One last very important qeustion Cp, one man to another, are you actually going to buy that entry level Audi or just brag about it pointlessly here in the Acura forum?
So you dont need to be on the same level as long as you think you can compete. Using this theory then means that the Hyundai Azera, Buick Allure, Toyota Avalon etc etc are all competitors against the 4G, 5 series, etc etc...
In all honesty i do understand now where your coming from. Dont you find it odd thought when a company builds a car and focuses it at a certain category/market but then doesnt build it to the same standards then claims it to be a better value?.....this leads back to MT comparo in their comments that if you want a premium car you have to pay a premium price.
In response to your last question........If you actually read any of my posts you would know that im in the market and seriously looking at purchasing the 4G 6MT when it arrives in the fall. I am a member on various automotive forums because i am a car enthusiast (restored my first car at 16yrs) and love to learn about the automotive industry on a regular basis (which is what these forums are about). As others have said in other posts, you need to stop being brand blinded and explore outside of the Honda/Acura world and educate yourself to see the pros and cons of other brands.
05-15-2009, 02:25 PM
#85
you cant compare a high powered AWD to monster RWD in the 0-60. When you start to get to 400+hp, even the 1/4 mile is no longer as effective a measure, that is how fast those type of cars are ment to go. We all agreed about more power equaling less 0-60 results, so I wouldn't be surprised if the S4 could run the same or possibly better, but the M3 will just pull away in every other aspect.
05-15-2009, 02:31 PM
#86
In response to your questioning of not mentioning of the handling numbers. I didnt want to start the same issue as was mentioned earlier between the A4 and TL. I read the article while at the dentist yesterday and again the A6 didnt have the suspention upgrade or the S-line package which as you know opens a can of worms.
05-15-2009, 02:38 PM
#87
CP, those cars are not in a luxury/sport segment, for someone who is such a car nut, I would have hoped you saw that. Again value has to come from somwhere, no one is in the game to loose money, what Acura does is different, they realize that in the luxury segments, people may want similar offerings but at lower price point, so they skimp where necessary but do a masterful job of not removing functionality. They usually offer more in a number of ways for less money. IMO I think today more and more companies need to find ways to justify the extra dollar charged, just as someone can all a cheap car a value, someone else can call a more expensive one a rip off. I know in the US we are coming to a point where most individuals are starting to learn sensibility, and can't just through money around as in the past, so if it costs more show me how, why, and if I will use or need it or I am not simply not buying it. Could it be becuase I am also an automotive enthusist that by my experiences and personal logic I choose Acura.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 05-15-2009 at 02:43 PM.
05-15-2009, 02:40 PM
#88
Intermediate
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmunds have tested M3 coupe. (two door only) at $65k. 0-60 @4.6 second. 71.5 NVH. 16 mpg fuel economy.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=136254
5.1 second is manufacturer figures for S4. I am sure actual tests will yield results closer to 4.5 to 4.6 second. S4 is 4 door with more refinement, interiorspace, ,looks and boot space and amenities. Thats what counts as can buy certain V8 sedans or Mitsu Evo in mid 30 prices for similar handling and performance. For $60K car u need looks, refinement in addition to pure performance.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=136254
5.1 second is manufacturer figures for S4. I am sure actual tests will yield results closer to 4.5 to 4.6 second. S4 is 4 door with more refinement, interiorspace, ,looks and boot space and amenities. Thats what counts as can buy certain V8 sedans or Mitsu Evo in mid 30 prices for similar handling and performance. For $60K car u need looks, refinement in addition to pure performance.
If a production S4 gets tested by Edmunds, MT, C&D, whatever with a 4.5 to 4.6 second 0-60 run, I'll eat my hat. With the drivetrain loss, there's not much chance of that happening. The 335i power ratings are ludicrously conservative, it is more like ~300WHP, not crank HP, which is quite a bit higher.
Now one area in which I do agree the S4 has potential is mods. Audis with FI setups have always responded really well to mods. With a SC, I'd imagine a simple pulley swap would give some notable gains in that S4.
05-15-2009, 02:55 PM
#89
Look CP, I dont want our discussions to turn into some of the others, but you really shouldn't say that I need to explore options, you don't know me and it's because I have explored and being a young knucklehead, as you can tell, that I have messed around with all kind of friends and family's cars, test drives, you name. Just a couple of weeks ago I was at the Nissan dealer checking out the GT-R and 370Z, I posted about it in the racing forum if you don't believe me. I always come back to Acura, it makes the most sense for me.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 05-15-2009 at 02:58 PM.
05-15-2009, 03:00 PM
#90
Acura's official press release for the 3G TL showed it's size and dimensions to the 5 series and made comparison's to it in the paragraphs. I have to look at the 4G and see what that used. So "many here" includes Acura Marketing, so your statement of "Acura clearly markets" is only your opinion.
Since the 4G forum opened last fall i have read many Acura enthusiasts post about how the 4G is the competitor to the A4, 3 series etc. I should have know better then to accept that and researched it myself. So today i went to the Acura media site and you will be surprised by what i found...Acura does anything but clearly state what the 4G is targeted after.
In this media release they state that the 4G is targeted after some of the following...A4 & A6, 3 Series and 5 series etc etc. I found this very odd but it does support what "iforyou" mentioned earlier.
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/733/releases/4680
So this supports a little of everyones theory, but it gets better. When you then read about what the 2009 RL is targeted at, it gets very specific.
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/4413
You see that Acura markets its flagship at the base A6 3.2 and the BMW 528i
So what does the 4G compete against in this segment?? the 550i or the A6 4.2L
obviously not. I found this very funny as this really confuses everything and even Acura's marketing dept has no idea where they are or where there going.
05-15-2009, 03:05 PM
#91
The edmunds S4 was a 'first drive', and they had numerous comments about how it felt to drive, how it handles, and so forth. They didn't have any contradictions to the official MFG numbers.
If a production S4 gets tested by Edmunds, MT, C&D, whatever with a 4.5 to 4.6 second 0-60 run, I'll eat my hat. With the drivetrain loss, there's not much chance of that happening. The 335i power ratings are ludicrously conservative, it is more like ~300WHP, not crank HP, which is quite a bit higher.
Now one area in which I do agree the S4 has potential is mods. Audis with FI setups have always responded really well to mods. With a SC, I'd imagine a simple pulley swap would give some notable gains in that S4.
If a production S4 gets tested by Edmunds, MT, C&D, whatever with a 4.5 to 4.6 second 0-60 run, I'll eat my hat. With the drivetrain loss, there's not much chance of that happening. The 335i power ratings are ludicrously conservative, it is more like ~300WHP, not crank HP, which is quite a bit higher.
Now one area in which I do agree the S4 has potential is mods. Audis with FI setups have always responded really well to mods. With a SC, I'd imagine a simple pulley swap would give some notable gains in that S4.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ive/index.html
It is amazing all magazines have same result
M3 also has gas guzzling tax.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=146346
Add a few other small options: brushed aluminum trim for $500; BMW Assist/Bluetooth for $750; Sirius Satellite Radio for $595; $825 for the destination fee; and a $1,300 gas-guzzler tax, the penalty for the M3's EPA rating of 14 mpg city/20 mpg highway. Altogether the total rises to $67,370.
05-15-2009, 03:37 PM
#92
Cp, can I get an apology now? j/k
Again, Acura f''d up the lineup with not making the RL what it should have been from the intro of the current gen. That's why the TL is now waiting in the middle of two segments, and is ready and capable to make the jump when the new RL is out. IMO that is a tremendous value in that segment, cheap or not. It's a little unclear where the TL is marketed, but what they ment was the new TL is also marketed at the same cars as the RL is in that class, as well as the usual lower class, becuase they now have two cars both built to compete in the same segment, for now, that's why the TL SH came out a little flat, not to step on the RL's toes, plus it is enough for the lower entry level class anyway in the mean time. Honestly if you followed the 3G then you know the TL was already in between the two segments last generation, this is not news to us. It's a good thing we are not that blind afterall, otherwise we would not have the knowledge and resources to elaborate on such a level.
Again, Acura f''d up the lineup with not making the RL what it should have been from the intro of the current gen. That's why the TL is now waiting in the middle of two segments, and is ready and capable to make the jump when the new RL is out. IMO that is a tremendous value in that segment, cheap or not. It's a little unclear where the TL is marketed, but what they ment was the new TL is also marketed at the same cars as the RL is in that class, as well as the usual lower class, becuase they now have two cars both built to compete in the same segment, for now, that's why the TL SH came out a little flat, not to step on the RL's toes, plus it is enough for the lower entry level class anyway in the mean time. Honestly if you followed the 3G then you know the TL was already in between the two segments last generation, this is not news to us. It's a good thing we are not that blind afterall, otherwise we would not have the knowledge and resources to elaborate on such a level.
05-15-2009, 05:03 PM
#93
Intermediate
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also have first drive C&D, Motortrend and R&T with same 5.1 second result.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ive/index.html
It is amazing all magazines have same result
M3 also has gas guzzling tax.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=146346
Add a few other small options: brushed aluminum trim for $500; BMW Assist/Bluetooth for $750; Sirius Satellite Radio for $595; $825 for the destination fee; and a $1,300 gas-guzzler tax, the penalty for the M3's EPA rating of 14 mpg city/20 mpg highway. Altogether the total rises to $67,370.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ive/index.html
It is amazing all magazines have same result
M3 also has gas guzzling tax.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=146346
Add a few other small options: brushed aluminum trim for $500; BMW Assist/Bluetooth for $750; Sirius Satellite Radio for $595; $825 for the destination fee; and a $1,300 gas-guzzler tax, the penalty for the M3's EPA rating of 14 mpg city/20 mpg highway. Altogether the total rises to $67,370.
We'll just have to wait and see. Unless the S4 can beat the testing numbers of the 335i, I'm not sure what the point of all this is.
The M3 is more of a competitor for the RS4 AFAIK. A lot of the extra $$$ for the M3 and RS cars isn't for a better 0-60 run, it's for track-ready performance.
05-15-2009, 08:52 PM
#94
I'm not even talking about M3, I'm talking 335i, which is a LOT cheaper, and will very likely be faster than the S4 judging from the available data. We know by testing that the 335i can do sub-5-second 0-60 runs, and dyno testing proves the 300hp rating is a gross understatement.
We'll just have to wait and see. Unless the S4 can beat the testing numbers of the 335i, I'm not sure what the point of all this is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRcGpdKePQU
The M3 is more of a competitor for the RS4 AFAIK. A lot of the extra $$$ for the M3 and RS cars isn't for a better 0-60 run, it's for track-ready performance.
05-15-2009, 10:47 PM
#95
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
SSFTSX, you're so full of shit, it's not even funny anymore. You must be smoking something really potent to think the S4 will do 4.0 sec 0-60.
For a guy who's admitted he has only owned 1 car in his life (a TSX), you keep making post after post about Audi's as if you founded the company and engineered every model they make. Seriously, man, why do you defend Audi so religiously?.....you don't even own one...do you own their stocks? What's your agenda?....do you breath, eat, and shit Audi? If you're so enamored with Audi's, why did you buy a TSX? Are you bipolar?
For a guy who's admitted he has only owned 1 car in his life (a TSX), you keep making post after post about Audi's as if you founded the company and engineered every model they make. Seriously, man, why do you defend Audi so religiously?.....you don't even own one...do you own their stocks? What's your agenda?....do you breath, eat, and shit Audi? If you're so enamored with Audi's, why did you buy a TSX? Are you bipolar?
05-16-2009, 02:11 AM
#96
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
cp3117, IMO, if we can't see the actual handling numbers for the A6, I don't think it's fair to say the A6 will beat the TL convincingly. At best, we can say, the A6 3.0T is slightly faster in a straight line than a TL SH-AWD tech w/ hpt package, but as far as handling and braking performance, we still need to see more data. I'd imagine the 6MT will close, if not eliminate the straight line performance gap between the two. I'd also wait for the 6AT to come for the TL as we all know the 5AT is old. Since you are interested in the 6MT TL, I think it's a good idea for both of us to sit tight and wait for more numbers.
And it's great to see the official press release articles! Great find! I think for now, they pretty much have given up on the current RL. It's a nice car, but it's just not what the market wants, its market is too narrow and people want more choices/options. I think of the RL as a fully loaded TL SH-AWD. I mean, it's pretty much the same size as the TL, same engine, but with better material quality, more features (cooled seats, sunshades, etc). With that said, I agree with winstrolvtec that, once the RL is completely redesigned, the TL will probably receive those extra features perhaps as options. I think that would come when the TL is due for a facelift.
And it's great to see the official press release articles! Great find! I think for now, they pretty much have given up on the current RL. It's a nice car, but it's just not what the market wants, its market is too narrow and people want more choices/options. I think of the RL as a fully loaded TL SH-AWD. I mean, it's pretty much the same size as the TL, same engine, but with better material quality, more features (cooled seats, sunshades, etc). With that said, I agree with winstrolvtec that, once the RL is completely redesigned, the TL will probably receive those extra features perhaps as options. I think that would come when the TL is due for a facelift.
05-16-2009, 04:32 AM
#97
SSFTSX, you're so full of shit, it's not even funny anymore. You must be smoking something really potent to think the S4 will do 4.0 sec 0-60.
For a guy who's admitted he has only owned 1 car in his life (a TSX), you keep making post after post about Audi's as if you founded the company and engineered every model they make. Seriously, man, why do you defend Audi so religiously?.....you don't even own one...do you own their stocks? What's your agenda?....do you breath, eat, and shit Audi? If you're so enamored with Audi's, why did you buy a TSX? Are you bipolar?
For a guy who's admitted he has only owned 1 car in his life (a TSX), you keep making post after post about Audi's as if you founded the company and engineered every model they make. Seriously, man, why do you defend Audi so religiously?.....you don't even own one...do you own their stocks? What's your agenda?....do you breath, eat, and shit Audi? If you're so enamored with Audi's, why did you buy a TSX? Are you bipolar?
05-16-2009, 05:11 AM
#98
Instructor
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My perspective as a former VAG fanatic. Former racer, now more mature adult.
1. I've ALWAYS seen Acura as 2nd tier luxury car maker. I don't see this is a bad thing. There cars have always slotted in between the competition. I've always thought of Acura's as excellent value for their money.
2. Comparing numbers, especially in cars this fast is useless. There are so many more factors involved then skidpad and 0-60 times especially when racing on the road (which I wouldn't recommend). In my youth I remember taking down cars much more powerful then my chipped Golf GTi. On the track it's a bit easier to reach a car's true potential, but so much still depends on the driver.
3. The TL breaks that mold. I usually shop within a class of car, this time I stuck to price. I wanted all the cabin goodies and for the price the A4 wasn't even close. IMHO the Audi interiors have gotten worse not better over the years. I found the Volkswagen CC interior much nicer then the A4.
The reasons I went with the TL in the end. Reliability (I've owned 4 VAG products in my life) and Price.
1. I've ALWAYS seen Acura as 2nd tier luxury car maker. I don't see this is a bad thing. There cars have always slotted in between the competition. I've always thought of Acura's as excellent value for their money.
2. Comparing numbers, especially in cars this fast is useless. There are so many more factors involved then skidpad and 0-60 times especially when racing on the road (which I wouldn't recommend). In my youth I remember taking down cars much more powerful then my chipped Golf GTi. On the track it's a bit easier to reach a car's true potential, but so much still depends on the driver.
3. The TL breaks that mold. I usually shop within a class of car, this time I stuck to price. I wanted all the cabin goodies and for the price the A4 wasn't even close. IMHO the Audi interiors have gotten worse not better over the years. I found the Volkswagen CC interior much nicer then the A4.
The reasons I went with the TL in the end. Reliability (I've owned 4 VAG products in my life) and Price.
05-16-2009, 05:53 AM
#99
My perspective as a former VAG fanatic. Former racer, now more mature adult.
1. I've ALWAYS seen Acura as 2nd tier luxury car maker. I don't see this is a bad thing. There cars have always slotted in between the competition. I've always thought of Acura's as excellent value for their money.
2. Comparing numbers, especially in cars this fast is useless. There are so many more factors involved then skidpad and 0-60 times especially when racing on the road (which I wouldn't recommend). In my youth I remember taking down cars much more powerful then my chipped Golf GTi. On the track it's a bit easier to reach a car's true potential, but so much still depends on the driver.
3. The TL breaks that mold. I usually shop within a class of car, this time I stuck to price. I wanted all the cabin goodies and for the price the A4 wasn't even close. IMHO the Audi interiors have gotten worse not better over the years. I found the Volkswagen CC interior much nicer then the A4.
The reasons I went with the TL in the end. Reliability (I've owned 4 VAG products in my life) and Price.
1. I've ALWAYS seen Acura as 2nd tier luxury car maker. I don't see this is a bad thing. There cars have always slotted in between the competition. I've always thought of Acura's as excellent value for their money.
2. Comparing numbers, especially in cars this fast is useless. There are so many more factors involved then skidpad and 0-60 times especially when racing on the road (which I wouldn't recommend). In my youth I remember taking down cars much more powerful then my chipped Golf GTi. On the track it's a bit easier to reach a car's true potential, but so much still depends on the driver.
3. The TL breaks that mold. I usually shop within a class of car, this time I stuck to price. I wanted all the cabin goodies and for the price the A4 wasn't even close. IMHO the Audi interiors have gotten worse not better over the years. I found the Volkswagen CC interior much nicer then the A4.
The reasons I went with the TL in the end. Reliability (I've owned 4 VAG products in my life) and Price.
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257352
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261532
and many more posts
last spring I came so close to buying a 335i - a great car, but...
05-16-2009, 02:13 PM
#100
Great points, the difference for me and many is that when it's essentially "cheaper" you don't get as disappointed and, knock on wood, I have never had a problem ever, on the other hand, had I dished out the extra dough and went in another direction, I already wouldn't feel that the price is justified and now my fuel pump went or whatever. Rarely on this board has anyone had problem that goes beyond exaggerated nitpicking, and that's a result of not really having anything else to complain about. With Acura you could get two cars for the price of "one" and never need to look back.
05-16-2009, 04:22 PM
#101
Honda Fanboy
Well when someone says that something "cant be that good" that generally means that its determined as bad or poor by the general public, but if you changing your mind now your original statement makes more sense.
Don't make assumptions. It makes an ass out of you. Something can be good without being the best or the worst. It shouldn't be that hard to figure it out unless your just here to start trouble.
I am not sure what you mean by "It is more substantial in every aspect" but if you mean the bulkier exterior of the TL, it does have some larger areas inside but not all of interior categories exceed the A4 and most are very close considering how big the 4G is.
Uh... substantial, meaning larger.
In the performance/acceleration category its proven as you agree that the inferior drivetrain of the A4 still outperforms the 4G but we dont know that all the other categories are in the 4G's favor due too the obvious lack of the equal tires and suspension upgrades left out in the Audi....I wouldn't be surprised though if the Acura still outhandled the A4 as Honda/Acura's are know for excellent handling cars. This shows though that the 4G suffers in other overall categories as in most comparo's the number one complaint is power for the 4G although it usually handles the best and still loses the comparo.
The A4 doesn't have an inferior drivetrain. It has a more advanced transmission with more gears. How is that inferior to the TL's drivetrain?
Im not sure if you understand how gear ratio's and final drive ratio's etc work but that is why i mentioned it in the other thread. The 4G due to its gearing is going to outperform the A4 in the higher speeds that most people dont achieve on a daily basis which is over the 110+ MPH range. While Audi looks at achieving quicker speeds in the lower ranges (there are also many other factors involved ie: engine performance etc) but overall each company is going after different goals while trying to achieve the best possible fuel consumption etc.
People will achieve 110+ MPH as often as they will go 0-60 in 6 seconds flat. The TL's speed is obvious when comparing the 0-60 of the two cars and the looking at the trapspeed numbers. The TL begins to accelerate faster than the A4 well before 110 MPH.
"Most powerful Acura ever built does not mean it is the fastest Acura ever built".....Yes unfortunately you are right there and looking at the comparo's this year its there in black and white to prove it.....I am assuming again that your referring to the marketing campaign how Acura tries to sell what powerful means. I would hope that with these automotive tests/comparo's that you would look at the fact's at hand and not go by the fluffy commercials that Acura uses.
I hope you do the same because I guess it must be those "fluffy" commercials that have you still coming back here.
Don't make assumptions. It makes an ass out of you. Something can be good without being the best or the worst. It shouldn't be that hard to figure it out unless your just here to start trouble.
I am not sure what you mean by "It is more substantial in every aspect" but if you mean the bulkier exterior of the TL, it does have some larger areas inside but not all of interior categories exceed the A4 and most are very close considering how big the 4G is.
Uh... substantial, meaning larger.
In the performance/acceleration category its proven as you agree that the inferior drivetrain of the A4 still outperforms the 4G but we dont know that all the other categories are in the 4G's favor due too the obvious lack of the equal tires and suspension upgrades left out in the Audi....I wouldn't be surprised though if the Acura still outhandled the A4 as Honda/Acura's are know for excellent handling cars. This shows though that the 4G suffers in other overall categories as in most comparo's the number one complaint is power for the 4G although it usually handles the best and still loses the comparo.
The A4 doesn't have an inferior drivetrain. It has a more advanced transmission with more gears. How is that inferior to the TL's drivetrain?
Im not sure if you understand how gear ratio's and final drive ratio's etc work but that is why i mentioned it in the other thread. The 4G due to its gearing is going to outperform the A4 in the higher speeds that most people dont achieve on a daily basis which is over the 110+ MPH range. While Audi looks at achieving quicker speeds in the lower ranges (there are also many other factors involved ie: engine performance etc) but overall each company is going after different goals while trying to achieve the best possible fuel consumption etc.
People will achieve 110+ MPH as often as they will go 0-60 in 6 seconds flat. The TL's speed is obvious when comparing the 0-60 of the two cars and the looking at the trapspeed numbers. The TL begins to accelerate faster than the A4 well before 110 MPH.
"Most powerful Acura ever built does not mean it is the fastest Acura ever built".....Yes unfortunately you are right there and looking at the comparo's this year its there in black and white to prove it.....I am assuming again that your referring to the marketing campaign how Acura tries to sell what powerful means. I would hope that with these automotive tests/comparo's that you would look at the fact's at hand and not go by the fluffy commercials that Acura uses.
I hope you do the same because I guess it must be those "fluffy" commercials that have you still coming back here.
05-16-2009, 04:32 PM
#102
Honda Fanboy
Well that is the key phrase isnt it.
The facts are this though:
1. Audi website: 3.2L quattro equally equipped to Tech SH-AWD HPT is $48.5
2. Acura website: SH-AWD HPT Tech equally equipped is $44.5
The difference is clearly $4K and not $10-12-13K etc. As myself and Pete already discussed, you can manipulate those numbers if you like and show the TL to have a greater perceived value if it makes you feel better. If thats the case you might as well compare the fully loaded S-Line with options Acura doesnt even offer and compare it to a used demo SH-AWD. Im sure you could make it look like a $20K value.
The facts are this though:
1. Audi website: 3.2L quattro equally equipped to Tech SH-AWD HPT is $48.5
2. Acura website: SH-AWD HPT Tech equally equipped is $44.5
The difference is clearly $4K and not $10-12-13K etc. As myself and Pete already discussed, you can manipulate those numbers if you like and show the TL to have a greater perceived value if it makes you feel better. If thats the case you might as well compare the fully loaded S-Line with options Acura doesnt even offer and compare it to a used demo SH-AWD. Im sure you could make it look like a $20K value.
There is a price difference of $5,300 between a comparably equipped TL and A4.
05-16-2009, 07:41 PM
#104
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Audi's 2.0T is definately one of the best 4-cyl. engines out there. The one thing I didn't like about it when I test-drove it was the roughness at idle and during full throttle. The V6 is much smoother. Also, I just couldn't see myself spending over $40K for a 4-banger, no matter how good.
05-16-2009, 11:00 PM
#105
I'm Craig
iTrader: (2)
SSFTSX, you're so full of shit, it's not even funny anymore. You must be smoking something really potent to think the S4 will do 4.0 sec 0-60.
For a guy who's admitted he has only owned 1 car in his life (a TSX), you keep making post after post about Audi's as if you founded the company and engineered every model they make. Seriously, man, why do you defend Audi so religiously?.....you don't even own one...do you own their stocks? What's your agenda?....do you breath, eat, and shit Audi? If you're so enamored with Audi's, why did you buy a TSX? Are you bipolar?
For a guy who's admitted he has only owned 1 car in his life (a TSX), you keep making post after post about Audi's as if you founded the company and engineered every model they make. Seriously, man, why do you defend Audi so religiously?.....you don't even own one...do you own their stocks? What's your agenda?....do you breath, eat, and shit Audi? If you're so enamored with Audi's, why did you buy a TSX? Are you bipolar?
05-16-2009, 11:14 PM
#106
Anyway look at new test results.
TL-SH-AWD 0-110 mph at 20.3 second
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...acuraTL_dp.pdf
Audi A4 3.2 0-110 mph at 19 second
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d..._compchart.pdf
@0-60mph Audi is faster by 0.4 second but by 110mph the lead increases to 1.3 sec. I am sure at 0-120 the lead is going to increase to alteast 5 seconds. It shows how poor aerodynamics are for TL in straight line.
Caranddriver manage 5.7 sec for 0-60 from 2.0T. About 1 second faster than manufacture claimed figures. I am sure the can pull 4.1 second with S4 as 5.1 second is official figure.
http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_g...on+id-257.html
Although it’s down 54 horsepower to the 3.2-liter V-6, the four-cylinder’s 0-to-60 time of 5.7 seconds was quick enough to match the acceleration of the V-6 version. Even when saddled with the heavy and friction-laden Quattro system and a six-speed automatic, the turbo four-cylinder provides better low-speed acceleration than a V-6 A4 with an automatic and all-wheel drive. The four-cylinder’s turbocharger provides immediate boost without a whiff of turbo lag and helps the base car outaccelerate the V-6 up to 50 mph.
Although it’s down 54 horsepower to the 3.2-liter V-6, the four-cylinder’s 0-to-60 time of 5.7 seconds was quick enough to match the acceleration of the V-6 version. Even when saddled with the heavy and friction-laden Quattro system and a six-speed automatic, the turbo four-cylinder provides better low-speed acceleration than a V-6 A4 with an automatic and all-wheel drive. The four-cylinder’s turbocharger provides immediate boost without a whiff of turbo lag and helps the base car outaccelerate the V-6 up to 50 mph.
For a guy who's admitted he has only owned 1 car in his life (a TSX), you keep making post after post about Audi's as if you founded the company and engineered every model they make. Seriously, man, why do you defend Audi so religiously?.....you don't even own one...do you own their stocks? What's your agenda?....do you breath, eat, and shit Audi? If you're so enamored with Audi's, why did you buy a TSX? Are you bipolar?
Audi has the money and industrial capacity to offer competitive price.
http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publi...cle_4938.shtml
As Carter explained, the price won’t be as low as the A4 3.2, but there will be a strong case for value. He says the goal is for the S4 to be competitive with a similarly-equipped BMW 335i without xDrive, BMW’s name for all-wheel drive. And, when you consider that the S4 has all of the added S-car kit whereas the 335 is still visually just another 3-series, this makes the S4’s case even more compelling.
As Carter explained, the price won’t be as low as the A4 3.2, but there will be a strong case for value. He says the goal is for the S4 to be competitive with a similarly-equipped BMW 335i without xDrive, BMW’s name for all-wheel drive. And, when you consider that the S4 has all of the added S-car kit whereas the 335 is still visually just another 3-series, this makes the S4’s case even more compelling.
http://www.motivemag.com/pub/feature..._A6_3_0T.shtml
There are numerous reasons to make the step down, however. The 3.0T delivers V8 smoothness and torque without the 4.2's low 16/23 mpg economy numbers. The EPA rates the car at 18 mpg city, 26 mpg highway, and our time mixing between those two environments delivered an indicated 24.5 mpg, just a big above the official combined number. Those figures are also higher than a 2008 A6 3.2's 17/25 mpg, which might explain why that engine enters 2009 mated only with a front-drive, continuously variable transmission powertrain. That model equals the 3.0T's city number but squeaks out one more mile for every highway gallon.
There are numerous reasons to make the step down, however. The 3.0T delivers V8 smoothness and torque without the 4.2's low 16/23 mpg economy numbers. The EPA rates the car at 18 mpg city, 26 mpg highway, and our time mixing between those two environments delivered an indicated 24.5 mpg, just a big above the official combined number. Those figures are also higher than a 2008 A6 3.2's 17/25 mpg, which might explain why that engine enters 2009 mated only with a front-drive, continuously variable transmission powertrain. That model equals the 3.0T's city number but squeaks out one more mile for every highway gallon.
05-17-2009, 12:34 AM
#107
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
So it seems like you like to compare a fast time for the A4 to the slow time for the TL. Funny that you didn't mention about Edmunds but I guess that's because they got 0-60mph in 6.9s for the A4 3.2L Quattro....hmm..that's one FULL second slower than what R&T got, even if you use the number with 1ft rollout, there's still a 0.7s gap. Then look at the 0-80mph from R&T, it's 9.8s, however, Edmunds reached 0-75mph in 10.2s. Here's the link:
http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/testdrive.html
When you use those numbers, the A4 is slower than the slowest numbers by a TL (link: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=153144)
And here are the numbers for the A4 2.0T from Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/...manual1.html):
0 - 60 (sec): 6.5
0 - 75 (sec): 9.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 14.7 @ 91.9
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 6.2
These numbers don't look that good anymore now, do they?
Back on topic...so using your logic, I can compare the fastest time of the TL to the slowest time of the A4. Let's see, the fastest legit numbers for the TL are from Jeff@TOV (link: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=809066)
0-60mph: 5.9
1/4 mile (only two full 1/4 mile runs were performed): 14.3@97.2 and 14.4@98.2
Slowest legit times for A4 3.2 (from Edmunds, link is shown above):
0 - 60 (sec): 6.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.0 @ 94.7
Using your logic, judging by the difference in 0-60mph and the trap speed, the TL will keep on pulling away from the A4, and "I am sure at 0-120 the lead is going to increase to at least 5 seconds. It shows how well aerodynamics are for TL in straight line."
And no, don't say BS like, "oh they are two different sources." I don't buy that idea.
"U will pay more for lesser car i wll win 0-155 mph sprint."
Yes indeed you will win, if the M3's driver is not even trying.
I went to BMW's website, started with a 335i coupe at $42k. Added leather seats, Cold Weather Package ($750), M Sport Package ($3.2k, which includes lip kit which is sort of like the S-line kit, sport seats, lightweight rims and performance tires, park distance control, M steering wheel), premium package ($2.6k). The total is less than $48k.
S5? Well, it starts at $51.4k. So essentially you are telling me the S4 will be priced $7k lower than the S5? Well, I sure hope so.
http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/testdrive.html
When you use those numbers, the A4 is slower than the slowest numbers by a TL (link: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=153144)
And here are the numbers for the A4 2.0T from Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/...manual1.html):
0 - 60 (sec): 6.5
0 - 75 (sec): 9.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 14.7 @ 91.9
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 6.2
These numbers don't look that good anymore now, do they?
Back on topic...so using your logic, I can compare the fastest time of the TL to the slowest time of the A4. Let's see, the fastest legit numbers for the TL are from Jeff@TOV (link: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=809066)
0-60mph: 5.9
1/4 mile (only two full 1/4 mile runs were performed): 14.3@97.2 and 14.4@98.2
Slowest legit times for A4 3.2 (from Edmunds, link is shown above):
0 - 60 (sec): 6.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.0 @ 94.7
Using your logic, judging by the difference in 0-60mph and the trap speed, the TL will keep on pulling away from the A4, and "I am sure at 0-120 the lead is going to increase to at least 5 seconds. It shows how well aerodynamics are for TL in straight line."
And no, don't say BS like, "oh they are two different sources." I don't buy that idea.
"U will pay more for lesser car i wll win 0-155 mph sprint."
Yes indeed you will win, if the M3's driver is not even trying.
I went to BMW's website, started with a 335i coupe at $42k. Added leather seats, Cold Weather Package ($750), M Sport Package ($3.2k, which includes lip kit which is sort of like the S-line kit, sport seats, lightweight rims and performance tires, park distance control, M steering wheel), premium package ($2.6k). The total is less than $48k.
S5? Well, it starts at $51.4k. So essentially you are telling me the S4 will be priced $7k lower than the S5? Well, I sure hope so.
05-17-2009, 12:54 AM
#108
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
SSFTSX, you're a fool if you think the S4 can be had for $44K. The base price of the S4 is going to be over $50K. Why are you comparing the TL to the S4? They don't even compete in the same segement! I think you are on drugs. Seriously. I don't know where you get this stuff. The S4 is a 4000+lb car with a 333 hp motor.......what makes you think it will beat a M3 that has a 414hp V8 and weighs 3700lb. Do the math. The S4 has no chance, period. You can keep quoting junk 'til your fingers bleed and you turn blue, but it won't change a thing.
Maybe one day your parents will buy you a S4 if you're a good little boy, and then you can come here and brag that you just beat the crap out of a Ferrari. Until that day happens, you're just one sad little man with a TSX with delusions of grandeur.
Maybe one day your parents will buy you a S4 if you're a good little boy, and then you can come here and brag that you just beat the crap out of a Ferrari. Until that day happens, you're just one sad little man with a TSX with delusions of grandeur.
05-17-2009, 02:05 AM
#109
So it seems like you like to compare a fast time for the A4 to the slow time for the TL. Funny that you didn't mention about Edmunds but I guess that's because they got 0-60mph in 6.9s for the A4 3.2L Quattro....hmm..that's one FULL second slower than what R&T got, even if you use the number with 1ft rollout, there's still a 0.7s gap. Then look at the 0-80mph from R&T, it's 9.8s, however, Edmunds reached 0-75mph in 10.2s. Here's the link:
http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/testdrive.html
When you use those numbers, the A4 is slower than the slowest numbers by a TL (link: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=153144)
And here are the numbers for the A4 2.0T from Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/...manual1.html):
0 - 60 (sec): 6.5
0 - 75 (sec): 9.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 14.7 @ 91.9
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 6.2
These numbers don't look that good anymore now, do they?
http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/testdrive.html
When you use those numbers, the A4 is slower than the slowest numbers by a TL (link: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=153144)
And here are the numbers for the A4 2.0T from Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/audi/a4/2009/...manual1.html):
0 - 60 (sec): 6.5
0 - 75 (sec): 9.6
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 14.7 @ 91.9
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 6.2
These numbers don't look that good anymore now, do they?
Back on topic...so using your logic, I can compare the fastest time of the TL to the slowest time of the A4. Let's see, the fastest legit numbers for the TL are from Jeff@TOV (link: http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...sage_id=809066)
0-60mph: 5.9
1/4 mile (only two full 1/4 mile runs were performed): 14.3@97.2 and 14.4@98.2
Slowest legit times for A4 3.2 (from Edmunds, link is shown above):
0 - 60 (sec): 6.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.0 @ 94.7
Using your logic, judging by the difference in 0-60mph and the trap speed, the TL will keep on pulling away from the A4, and "I am sure at 0-120 the lead is going to increase to at least 5 seconds. It shows how well aerodynamics are for TL in straight line."
0-60mph: 5.9
1/4 mile (only two full 1/4 mile runs were performed): 14.3@97.2 and 14.4@98.2
Slowest legit times for A4 3.2 (from Edmunds, link is shown above):
0 - 60 (sec): 6.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.0 @ 94.7
Using your logic, judging by the difference in 0-60mph and the trap speed, the TL will keep on pulling away from the A4, and "I am sure at 0-120 the lead is going to increase to at least 5 seconds. It shows how well aerodynamics are for TL in straight line."
and that is your non standard test by different sources. So even your worst example turns out to be good for Audi.
And no, don't say BS like, "oh they are two different sources." I don't buy that idea.
"U will pay more for lesser car i wll win 0-155 mph sprint."
Yes indeed you will win, if the M3's driver is not even trying.
I went to BMW's website, started with a 335i coupe at $42k. Added leather seats, Cold Weather Package ($750), M Sport Package ($3.2k, which includes lip kit which is sort of like the S-line kit, sport seats, lightweight rims and performance tires, park distance control, M steering wheel), premium package ($2.6k). The total is less than $48k.
S5? Well, it starts at $51.4k. So essentially you are telling me the S4 will be priced $7k lower than the S5? Well, I sure hope so.
S5? Well, it starts at $51.4k. So essentially you are telling me the S4 will be priced $7k lower than the S5? Well, I sure hope so.
05-17-2009, 02:10 AM
#110
It's funny becuase when the fastest version TL finally does arrive in the fall, to compete with the fastest version(s) of the A4, there will be no more discussion, we will all know which car is faster, and which offers a higher level of performance and just about everything else for less.
05-17-2009, 03:02 AM
#111
Nice try but you failed in your own logic. At 0-60mph. Audi is slower by Full One second. But at quarter mile Audi is slower by 0.7 second. So by 0-120 mph. Audi would have erased the deficit as. the higher the speed the better the performance.
and that is your non standard test by different sources. So even your worst example turns out to be good for Audi.
and that is your non standard test by different sources. So even your worst example turns out to be good for Audi.
M3 will be several time at gas pump. Audi has larger fuel capacity along with more efficient drive, wider torque band, superior 7 speed tranmission. and ultra refined with more efficient airflow. There is no contest at higher speeds.
S5 is more expensive and is priced as such. The days of 335 are over. German comparision tests have already declared as such. The only question is about M3
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 05-17-2009 at 03:04 AM.
05-17-2009, 08:09 AM
#112
AZ Community Team
Last paragraph in the Luxury Market Status is
"Available with the largest and most powerful engine in TL history, along with the sport-driving focused SH-AWD® system (the world's first torque-vectoring AWD system when introduced in 2000), the new TL arrives ready to compete with vehicles like the Audi A4 and A6, BMW 3-Series and 5-Series, Infiniti G35 and M35, Lexus ES, GS and IS sedans, and the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and E-Class."
In my interpretation that is clearly stated, it's fairly common to have vehicles covering several model ranges for marketing purposes. Many folks go in to a BMW dealership looking at a 3 series then actually purchase a 5 series. Many memebers on Acurazine have gone from a TL to a RL. So having the 4G cover marketing interests for a 3 and 5, or a C and E makes sense.
The RL is a older design and IMO competes with the 5 and E in size and class but on the next generation may be up to the S, LS, or 7 series.
Acura has made plenty of press releases in the last couple years clearly stating what their intentions are. So by reading those press releases it again clearly states Acura's direction.
I like some others on this forum have never sen them as "tier-1" but it's never bothered me in the least as they've brought some very nice products to market that are not only fun to drive but also very affordable to purchase and maintain.
Not sure if it's still on the Internet but someone once posted the internal GM memo about concern from the Corvette marketing group with the 1984 introduction of the Pontiac's Fiero taking away sales from the Corvette. Pretty amusing memo to read, since although both vehicles were 2 seaters (one mid-engine, one front engine). The Corvette folsk were clearly worried about the potential of the V6 Fiero.
"Available with the largest and most powerful engine in TL history, along with the sport-driving focused SH-AWD® system (the world's first torque-vectoring AWD system when introduced in 2000), the new TL arrives ready to compete with vehicles like the Audi A4 and A6, BMW 3-Series and 5-Series, Infiniti G35 and M35, Lexus ES, GS and IS sedans, and the Mercedes-Benz C-Class and E-Class."
In my interpretation that is clearly stated, it's fairly common to have vehicles covering several model ranges for marketing purposes. Many folks go in to a BMW dealership looking at a 3 series then actually purchase a 5 series. Many memebers on Acurazine have gone from a TL to a RL. So having the 4G cover marketing interests for a 3 and 5, or a C and E makes sense.
The RL is a older design and IMO competes with the 5 and E in size and class but on the next generation may be up to the S, LS, or 7 series.
Acura has made plenty of press releases in the last couple years clearly stating what their intentions are. So by reading those press releases it again clearly states Acura's direction.
I like some others on this forum have never sen them as "tier-1" but it's never bothered me in the least as they've brought some very nice products to market that are not only fun to drive but also very affordable to purchase and maintain.
Not sure if it's still on the Internet but someone once posted the internal GM memo about concern from the Corvette marketing group with the 1984 introduction of the Pontiac's Fiero taking away sales from the Corvette. Pretty amusing memo to read, since although both vehicles were 2 seaters (one mid-engine, one front engine). The Corvette folsk were clearly worried about the potential of the V6 Fiero.
You raise a good point and i will retract my "clearly" part of that statement for the following reason.
Since the 4G forum opened last fall i have read many Acura enthusiasts post about how the 4G is the competitor to the A4, 3 series etc. I should have know better then to accept that and researched it myself. So today i went to the Acura media site and you will be surprised by what i found...Acura does anything but clearly state what the 4G is targeted after.
In this media release they state that the 4G is targeted after some of the following...A4 & A6, 3 Series and 5 series etc etc. I found this very odd but it does support what "iforyou" mentioned earlier.
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/733/releases/4680
So this supports a little of everyones theory, but it gets better. When you then read about what the 2009 RL is targeted at, it gets very specific.
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/4413
You see that Acura markets its flagship at the base A6 3.2 and the BMW 528i
So what does the 4G compete against in this segment?? the 550i or the A6 4.2L obviously not. I found this very funny as this really confuses everything and even Acura's marketing dept has no idea where they are or where there going.
Since the 4G forum opened last fall i have read many Acura enthusiasts post about how the 4G is the competitor to the A4, 3 series etc. I should have know better then to accept that and researched it myself. So today i went to the Acura media site and you will be surprised by what i found...Acura does anything but clearly state what the 4G is targeted after.
In this media release they state that the 4G is targeted after some of the following...A4 & A6, 3 Series and 5 series etc etc. I found this very odd but it does support what "iforyou" mentioned earlier.
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/733/releases/4680
So this supports a little of everyones theory, but it gets better. When you then read about what the 2009 RL is targeted at, it gets very specific.
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/755/releases/4413
You see that Acura markets its flagship at the base A6 3.2 and the BMW 528i
So what does the 4G compete against in this segment?? the 550i or the A6 4.2L
obviously not. I found this very funny as this really confuses everything and even Acura's marketing dept has no idea where they are or where there going.
05-17-2009, 09:00 AM
#113
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 42
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try but you failed in your own logic. At 0-60mph. Audi is slower by Full One second. But at quarter mile Audi is slower by 0.7 second. So by 0-120 mph. Audi would have erased the deficit as. the higher the speed the better the performance.
and that is your non standard test by different sources. So even your worst example turns out to be good for Audi.
and that is your non standard test by different sources. So even your worst example turns out to be good for Audi.
One other thing you keep leaving out. How about all of the races the TL will win against the A4 when the A4 is sitting in the shop being repaired somewhere? With all of Audi's supposed technical expertise, why does it keep building cars with piss poor reliability? The beloved 2.0T engine is known to be one of the worst offenders in terms of reliability. Most Acura drivers do not buy Acura's because they offer the best performance possible; Acura's are purchased because they offer a good combination of value, reliability and decent performance. The comparison between a TL and S4 is downright ridiculous.
05-17-2009, 09:32 AM
#114
Instructor
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you keep quoting 0-120 mph times, as if they are significant for 95% of the drivers on the road? I've accelerated from 0-120 in my current car all of zero times.
One other thing you keep leaving out. How about all of the races the TL will win against the A4 when the A4 is sitting in the shop being repaired somewhere? With all of Audi's supposed technical expertise, why does it keep building cars with piss poor reliability? The beloved 2.0T engine is known to be one of the worst offenders in terms of reliability. Most Acura drivers do not buy Acura's because they offer the best performance possible; Acura's are purchased because they offer a good combination of value, reliability and decent performance. The comparison between a TL and S4 is downright ridiculous.
One other thing you keep leaving out. How about all of the races the TL will win against the A4 when the A4 is sitting in the shop being repaired somewhere? With all of Audi's supposed technical expertise, why does it keep building cars with piss poor reliability? The beloved 2.0T engine is known to be one of the worst offenders in terms of reliability. Most Acura drivers do not buy Acura's because they offer the best performance possible; Acura's are purchased because they offer a good combination of value, reliability and decent performance. The comparison between a TL and S4 is downright ridiculous.
05-17-2009, 11:27 AM
#115
One other thing you keep leaving out. How about all of the races the TL will win against the A4 when the A4 is sitting in the shop being repaired somewhere? With all of Audi's supposed technical expertise, why does it keep building cars with piss poor reliability? The beloved 2.0T engine is known to be one of the worst offenders in terms of reliability. Most Acura drivers do not buy Acura's because they offer the best performance possible; Acura's are purchased because they offer a good combination of value, reliability and decent performance. The comparison between a TL and S4 is downright ridiculous.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/li...eakdown_report
Munich - German cars remain the most reliable with Audi leading in three categories while Japanese cars continued their slide downward, according to the latest breakdown report released by the German automobile association ADAC.
Munich - German cars remain the most reliable with Audi leading in three categories while Japanese cars continued their slide downward, according to the latest breakdown report released by the German automobile association ADAC.
05-17-2009, 11:59 AM
#116
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 42
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would some buy TL-SH-AWD/S4/M3 when lesser models can do the job for daily driving. because you want to enjoy at higher speed with more confidence, refinement, fuel economy. Only S4 delivers all the features. In EU it is priced less than BMW 335 M Sport and Honda Legend. I am sure it wil be the same case in US.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
This nonsense. Audis are the leaders in high priced cars around world. There is reason behind Audi dominant postion in EU/China.
05-17-2009, 12:22 PM
#117
Why do you keep bringing in red herrings every time you cannot refute an argument? Audis and VWs are known to have below average reliability. Go check Consumer Reports if you do not believe me. You keep denying that American consumers care about reliability. What good is a car if it is in the shop all the time? Strong reliability is one of the main reasons that Japanese carmakers have thrived in the US.
(4cylinder Civic/Accord/Camry/Corolla/CRV) are the dominant people drivers. It is slowly going to change with mass market diesels in 4 cylinder forum from German.
05-17-2009, 01:54 PM
#118
Yea, It's Me!
I disagree. It doesn't matter how efficient diesel is. American buyers aren't quick to jump on the band wagon. Maybe if diesel fuel prices drop dramatically, VW might sell more. The fact is that both VW and Audi reputation stinks in the US. Every automaker that has tried to go head to head with the top 4 (Civic, Accord, Corolla, Camry) have come up short. Why do you think diesels from Germany are going to compete? The Jetta diesel couldn't do it.
05-17-2009, 02:03 PM
#119
AZ Community Team
I gotta wonder when the moderators will lock this thread as the traditional Audi love children have decided to pollute the thread.
05-17-2009, 02:24 PM
#120
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
They are still good for 2.0T engine. getting 6.5 second by Edmunds is pretty respectable and not out of line from manufacturers.
Nice try but you failed in your own logic. At 0-60mph. Audi is slower by Full One second. But at quarter mile Audi is slower by 0.7 second. So by 0-120 mph. Audi would have erased the deficit as. the higher the speed the better the performance.
and that is your non standard test by different sources. So even your worst example turns out to be good for Audi.
I didnot BS. I proved you wrong in ur own logic.
M3 will be several time at gas pump. Audi has larger fuel capacity along with more efficient drive, wider torque band, superior 7 speed tranmission. and ultra refined with more efficient airflow. There is no contest at higher speeds.
S5 is more expensive and is priced as such. The days of 335 are over. German comparision tests have already declared as such. The only question is about M3.
Nice try but you failed in your own logic. At 0-60mph. Audi is slower by Full One second. But at quarter mile Audi is slower by 0.7 second. So by 0-120 mph. Audi would have erased the deficit as. the higher the speed the better the performance.
and that is your non standard test by different sources. So even your worst example turns out to be good for Audi.
I didnot BS. I proved you wrong in ur own logic.
M3 will be several time at gas pump. Audi has larger fuel capacity along with more efficient drive, wider torque band, superior 7 speed tranmission. and ultra refined with more efficient airflow. There is no contest at higher speeds.
S5 is more expensive and is priced as such. The days of 335 are over. German comparision tests have already declared as such. The only question is about M3.
You seem to not understanding how the 1/4 mile thing works. Sure, the A4 takes 15s to reach the end of the 1/4 mile run, and the TL takes 14.3, that's a 0.7s difference. But you failed to realize that, in 14.3s, the TL is already at 97-98mph, while the A4, at 15s, is only a 94mph. What does that mean? Well, for the A4, by 14.3s, it would be somewhere at 92-93mph, or for the TL, by 15s, it will be at around 99mph. Still don't understanding? 0-60mph compares the time it takes to reach from 0mph to 60mph. The 0.7s difference in 1/4 mile that you are talking about, that's the difference in time it takes to get from 0mile to 1/4 mile. Still don't understanding? One measures time to speed, one measures time to distance. If you still don't understand, I don't know what else I can do. So, do you think the A4 will go from 94mph to 99mph in 1 full second? No, I don't think so. And yes, the TL's time is not even corrected, usually when corrected, it's faster.
You still fail to understand that the M3 has 414hp pushing 3700lb or so, while the S4 has 333hp or so pushing like 4000lb.
335i coupe is about $2k more expensive than 335i sedan. The S5 is priced at $51.4k, and you are saying the S4 starts at $44k. So essentially you are telling me the S4 is $7k cheaper than a S5 by going with the 3.0T engine rather than the 4.2L V8 engine. We will see about that.