gnr112

so uhm, i test drove a 3.5 Altima coupe 5 AT yesterday, and i didn't think it was any quicker than my '04 Acura TL 5AT stock car. Well, i'm not a real pro at cars and stuff, so please don't mind me asking some dumb questions.

so..just simply judging from specs, such as horsepower, torque, and car's weight, i thought 3.5 Altima coupe should be quicker than my TL. Well, i guess i was wrong. When i floored the gas with Altima, i actually didn't feel anything; while i get some kind of "pulled back" feeling when i floor the gas in my TL. So i decided check up 0-60 time. TL takes approximately 6.0 seconds, and 3.5 Altima coupe takes 6.2 seconds.

well...TL is obviously heavier than Altima coupe, while horsepower and torque are about the same. So..any pros have any idea why TL is actually quicker than Altima coupe? like..what other factors affect the car's quickness?

Thanks in advance. Non-insult on a new beginner would be nice eh.

Jackygor

Suspension set up and the gearing of each car would play a big part in how fast a car actually feels.

Will Y.

The transmission and axle gearing have a lot to do with the acceleration times. Also, isn't the Altima auto a CVT? If so, the CVT has a different feel from normal automatic transmissions.
Further, production cars vary- you could get a slow dog as well as a factory freak.
Finally, the "butt dyno" is not particularly accurate and should not be relied upon to compare similar cars' acceleration.

gnr112

hey..thanks a lot eh -__-
anyway..what's Butt Dyno?

SeCsTaC

The Altima has a CVT which I imagine would feel very different than the regular auto your TL has.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

It's not very surprising. Go to youtube and search for some Altima V6 CVT video and you will notice its 0-100mph time is around 16 seconds, which is pretty much the same as a 5AT TL. You felt slower because of the CVT too when in reality it's about as fast. Of course, timing the run from youtube is a very crude way of measuring a car's performance, but you get the general idea of how fast the car is.

Butt-dyno is simply how fast the car is based on your feeling.

F23A4

Having driven the 04 TL 5AT a few times (and knowing that my 07 AV6 is on par with the TL 0-60-wise) it is not hitting 0-60 in 6-flat without a mod or two. Both cars are likely in 6.5 second range 0-60mph.

As indicated, the CVT power delivery is very unusual when compared with a normal tranny. Having owned a 5.5G Maxima and being the current owner of a Murano (same motor, different auto trannys) I can attest to this personally.

gnr112

thanks for replies guys

SodaLuvr

The AV6 is not in the mid 6 second range for 0-60. Edmunds got a 0-60 time of 7.6:

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta.../pageNumber=12

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

^ Interesting, C&D got 7s flat for the AT, and 5.9s for the MT.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ct+page-3.html
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test

But then again, Edmunds got 6.3s/14.6s for the 1/4mile for the new AV6 6MT, while motortrend got 5.7s/14.0s respectively.

phile

^ Edmunds test their cars the way normal people would drive them. Which is, 0-60 = stepping on the accelerator from a dead stop until the speedo hits 60.

I've read that the other car mags perform the brake torquing technique, which apparently ruins the transmission. But on the bright side, it gets fabulous acceleration numbers.

dom

Not to mention C&D and MT correct for temp/air press etc. Edmunds, R&T among others report exactly what they get without making any sort of corrections.

F23A4

to the last two posts.

With that said, Car and Driver (12/05) posted a 0-60mph time of 6.6 seconds with an 06 AV6 5AT sedan, running the 1/4 mile in 15.1 sec @ 95 mph....which is pretty much in the immediate ballpark of the 04-07 TL 5AT.

Will Y.

C&D also drops the clutch on manuals @ 3K, 4K, 5K or whatever RPM gets the best acceleration. I love the fact that C&D will not baby 6-figure $ cars, but will drive the whee out of them, and unapologetically sidelines many supposed "performance" cars and variants.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yea, for cars without much torque, like many Hondas, Edmunds' way of testing would yield much slower times. AWD cars also lose their traction advantage off the line. IMO if I want to see how the car behaves in the real world, I'd simply look at the 5-60mph time or something like that. Each to his own I guess.

bigman

The VQ has a more Linear power delivery than the J32 in your TL. Thats why the Altima feels less "explosive" than the TL, but most likely pulls the same or harder.

Mokos23

i drove an 09 Murano with the CVT and I don't like the CVT at all, feels sluggish to me.

TheMirror

The brake torquing technique does not ruin transmissions. Auto transmissions are designed to run under heavy loads like that. I imagine you could stress and break something by doing it for several hours on end, but not for the few seconds it takes to launch a car.

-Mirror