ArcticMax

Go see the July issue of (Motor Trend). I think. It could be Car and driver.

Anyway,

there is a one page review of the TL-S, and guess what, it does 0-100 mph in 16 seconds!!

For those of you who don't know, the fastest 0-100 time for the Maxima was a 4th gen. It did it in 18.5 seconds.
The 2k takes 19.5. <both 5-speed>. (Yes, I know the mag numbers are not always reliable, but they DO provide us with a reference point. )

0-100 is a better indicator of accleration than 0-60.

16 seconds is pretty damn fast.

When I drove one, it didn't feel that fast, but I guess it must be. I have to admit, the TL-S is probably faster than any stock 5-speed Max.

The LS1s do 0-100 in 12 to 13 seconds, and the 911 turbo does it in 9 seconds. S2000 does it in 15 seconds, and Civic Si in 19.5 seconds. Automatic Maxima needs like 23 seconds.

punkdork

maximawanabee

Thanks for the info...I think.

So I guess it does the 1/4 mile in, say, very low to mid 15's?

The magazine probably did the powerbrake method to get the RPM's high enough to engage that extra VTEC cam.
Heheh...oops!

Jeff2k1GLE

iTrader: (3)

Max_Gator

Well, I'm not sure those numbers are correct for the Max.

I'm not sure how a 5th gen 5 speed gets 19.5 to 100 when it is running 15.1 stock in the quarter around 95 mph. That's four seconds for 5 mph. Clearly that can't be right.

Also, given the additional hp after 5k on the 5th gens compared to the 4th gens, I would be surprised if even a 95/96 4th gen pulled a 5th gen in a race to 100.

Notwithstanding, the TL-S may indeed be faster to 100. I haven't raced one yet.

ArcticMax

but when motor trend tested the Max for 0-100, they got 19.5.

15.1/94 should equate to a faster time to 100 than 19.5.

I have no idea what gives.


The TL can go to 100 and above in third gear, but a 5-speed Max would need to shift to 4th to make 100. Maybe that's why.

Sonic

Those could be times for an automatic, the numbers would line up a little better.

stevepake

I do.

Motor Trend's times for Hondas and Acura's have been rather, shall we say "inflated" recently. Like Accord V6 Coupes hitting 15.6s ET's bone stock, and now the TL-S getting to 60mph in 6.2s when its lighter 2 door brother that should be faster only managed 6.8 ????

I feel that MT is losing credibility rather quickly because their times, specifically for Honda's and Acura's have been less than consistent in recent times. I suspect large amounts of money is exchanging hands behind the scenes....

Bingo...

As per RAdams info yesterday (the COOL TL-S guy...), he said that the TL-S will just hit a little over 100mph in 3rd gear, whereas the Maxima would have to upshift to 4th. That could easily make a big difference in times, although I'm not sure of how much...

RAdams also said that the TL-S is pretty much dead after 3rd gear, and I know you guys are still pulling pretty hard in 4th after your upshift. I wonder what the 0-130 times are between the two cars???

I'd be willing to bet that the Maxima would be ahead.

ColgateU

Alright NO FLAME WAR HERE, just facts:

Motor Trend:
TL-S 0-60: 6.28 1/4 mile 14.72 at 97.6 MPH
Cl-S 0-60: 6.4 1/4 mile 14.8 at 96.5 MPH

Car and Driver:
TL-S 0-60: 6.2 1/4 mile 14.8
(and yes they mention in the article that the TL-S is FASTER THAN THE 330ci MANUAL TO 100MPH by 0.6 SECONDS.

Sonic

Are they testing an off the floor model or a specially prepped model from Acura Corperate? I've been lurking (not posting at acura-tl.com and it seems as though not one of your members has gotten numbers that low.

Y2KevSE

iTrader: (13)

So you're one of the trolls they're talking about. Stop trolling and post.

UMD_MaxSE

iTrader: (1)

another one of these threads, eh? hehehe....

Jeff92se

iTrader: (82)

Curious. Have the TL-S guys actually gone to the track w/ their stock or mildly modded cars to confirm the above?

Sonic

They jump on us when ever we post. I'll register, but am extremely apprehensive about posting.

stevepake

Well see this is the whole thing we're scrutinizing here...

MT's times have been consistently LOWER than every other mag's on the CL-S because C&D, R&T, and AW all got like 6.7-6.8's on the CL-S.

Conspiracy theory:
With medicsonic's info that the mags may be getting "specially prepped" TL-S's since none of the TL forum guys have been able to reproduce these numbers (again going by medicsonic's info), then maybe these TL-S's are getting Level 10 TC upgrades or something. That would definitely knock off a half second from a 0-60 time. Maybe it's something else too...but half a second is pretty big, especially with an auto tranny and a big heavy car.

Hey ColgateU, have your TL guys head off to the track and see what kind of 1/4 mile ET's they can get. Also, have them get a G-Tech/Pro performance meter and see what kind of numbers they can get with those on LEVEL ground.

I'm not sure I believe these "low ball" times for a truely "stock" TL-S.

These numbers from Motor Trend aren't facts. They're just data points, and they're only just a few of them. Statistics are where the "TRUE" facts lie hidden. Statistics show that most CL-S's get high-6's to 60, not the low ball 6.2 time or whatever you said (too lazy to scroll up). And when you get some more data points from your TL guys getting G-Tech/Pro's you'll have even more datapoints from which you'll be able to extract some REAL facts.

One data point from one mag on a car that might be "specially prepped" by Acura is not a fact, but rather "skewed data." And skewed data is thrown out because it's invalid and doesn't accurately represent what you're trying to measure. If 5 mags test a CL-S and they get 6.7-6.8, and then one mag tests it and gets a 6.4, then what's the true performance of the CL-S?? Is it the 6.7-6.8 that 5 other mags got, or is it the 6.4 time that only one mag got?

Well, the standard deviation of those data points are very tight, and by statistics laws, anything beyond the 3rd standard deviation is ruled an outlier and is thrown out because it's not statistically significant, and isn't truely representative of what you're measuring. That one 6.4 from one mag is an outlier, and I don't think it's "truely representative" of the CL-S's performance.

But if you TL and CL guys go to the track and get some more datapoints with time slips and G-Tech's which brings that 6.4 within the 3rd standard deviation and that it is a possible and valid time then I'll shut up

No flames, man. I'm unbiased lover of all Japanese imports, including the TL-S, and i don't even own a Maxima, but rather an Accord V6, which the TL is based on. So no flames, dude - technically I'm more "one of you" than I am a Max guy so just consider me an interested, neutral, unbiased third party

Peace.

ColgateU

I did a little research for you stevepake:

The worst time I've seen published for a Cl-S was in the January issue of Road and Track...they ran a 0-60 in 6.7 sec and a 1/4 mile of 15.0 at 95.2MPH and got to 100 in 16.5 seconds. Now, I was wondering why such a bad times were reached and it turned out that they were testing the CL-S in 101 degree weather! Everyone can attest to the fact that cars run slower at higher temperatures. So the discrepency between Cl-S and TL-S times that you discuss may not really be a discrepency. It's the simple factor of road testing conditions.

Jeff92se

iTrader: (82)

What are those TL-S board guys getting at the track(again)??

ColgateU

None of the TL-S owners I know have taken their cars to the track yet (since the car is relatively new), but there are numerous cl-s guys who've run 14.4 1/4 miles and slightly lower with just comptech headers. Hopefully, I will be taking my TL-S to Englishtown very soon and run it stock. If you guys would like I'll scan the timeslip and post it on this board.

KyMAXSE

I for one would definitely like to see the timeslip if you could get it, I think most of us would find it interesting for comparison. I have also browsed around the TL-S forums and saw a lot of people getting right around 7 seconds to 60 there as well.

stevepake

And I've got a little more research for you, ColgateU

Published Road Tests: Acura CL-S
01 CL-S, R&T Jan-01: 6.70 / 15.00 <== Your R&T Time
01 CL-S, C&D Dec-00: 6.80 / 15.20
01 CL-S, AW Aug-00: 6.70 / 15.14
01 CL-S, MT Jul-00: 6.40 / 14.80 ????

...and actually it wasn't quite the slowest. The slowest was the C&D time, which was done in December.

BTW, where the hell is it 101 degrees out in fricken January???

Anyways, the "slow" times of 6.7-6.8 occur during both hot and cold times of the year. But this fastest MT time occurs in July, which is the hottest month of the year. So I'm not too convinced on this whole temperature theory thing, and for all anyone knows Acura could have paid R&T to say that... I'm still trying to think of a place that can get to 101 degrees in JANUARY!

And right now it's June again, so it's hotter out and times should be slower, right?? So why is the TL-S getting 6.2's??

Anyways, there still isn't really enough data points here to get a good conclusion, but I'm still skeptical. Have some of your TL guys head to the track and get some time slips, and/or get some of those G-Tech/Pro's.

You can pretty much determine who is going to win a race almost everytime by figuring out who has more WHEEL horsepower under the entire RPM curve, calculating in the weight of two cars, and then determining the whp:weight ratio (as from yesterday.) Transmission gearing turns out to be pretty insignificant - the biggest factor is type of transmission but that's taken care of by using wheel horsepower instead of crank horsepower. Unless the gearing is seriously optimized for performance, it turns out to be insignificant in the numbers. The most accurate way to do this is actually integrating the wheel horsepower under the whole RPM curve and not just using the "peak" numbers, but that's all we've got to go with there. Better low-end torque can help, but that only helps you through the first half of one gear and after that low-end torque doesn't even matter anymore. Maybe the TL-S's slightly earlier peak torque could explain these 6.2's???? Well, that would all depend on if the numbers are even reproduceable in the first place... If you guys can reproduce these 6.2's then maybe that's the reason.

Both the Maxima SE 5-spd and TL-S/CL-S have whp:weight ratios so close that there's almost no difference and the Maxima manages to get high-6's, just like most of the data up there shows for the CL-S.

So where is the extra power coming from for these low-6's? Three mags are showing high-6's/low-15's, and one mag is showing low-6's/high-14's. So which is it???

I'm just really confused. You guys need to head to the track....

MAX2000JP

Those numbers from Motor Trend arent accurate. A TL-S WILL NOT beat a 330i 5 speed up to 100. The way that the 330 is geared I dont believe it at all. Secondly, BriGuyMax raced a new TL-S up to 60 i believe the other day and pulled a few cars on it(he ran a new best of 14.8 in the 1/4). Personally, I believe that MT got some "factory preped" cars and that a 1/4 of 15-15.2 is more believable for the Type-S

PhatGuy

Too bad my 2K1 5pd AE isn't stock!

MrBurner

lets see...according to the back of motor trend, the 330i does 0-60 in 5.8 and the 1/4 in 14.4...but anyways

last time i went to the track, a guy w/ a copper colored cl-s came with us...he had headers, and cai...his first run, he ran a 15.5 and his best run of the night was a 15.0...it was a little under 80 degrees out

i raced a cl-s on the highway awhile back...i had my friend and my system in the car and this guy had all the emblems shaved but the S...i had about half a tank of gas and had my windows down (not expecting a race)...so he had me by 1/2 car length upto 120mph...just think if i was 250lbs lighter (160lb. friend and 90lb sub box)...i think a stock cl-s should be fairly even w/ a 5spd max (i know i am fairly even w/ a 5spd max now)

Steadi

Why would so many of you doubt that the TL-S could hit 60 in 6.2 seconds?
In the June 2000 issue of MotorTrend they have a comparison test of the Acura 3.2TL (not the S) with the Infiniti I30, the Lexus ES300 and the Olds Intrique.

They got the standard 225 HP version to do 0-60 in 6.7 seconds, the 1/4 in 15.2 @ 93.1 that's with the new for 2000 5 speed auto with 4.43:1 axle ratio (excellent for acceleration). I see no reason to doubt it and then the fact the TL-S gets 35 more HP, that would be more than enough to knock off 1/2 second!

The 1999 Acura 3.2TL had a 4 speed auto and not as aggressive gearing and it was tested as having a 0-60 in 7.4 seconds.

Quite frankly, what I would be questioning is the power of the Nissan/Infiniti I30. They claim 227 HP yet it's 0-60 time is the same as the 210 HP Lexus and the Lexus has only 2.64:1 axle ratio compared to the much better for acceleration 3.79:1 the Infiniti has. Even the 215 HP Olds beat the Infiniti to 60 and ties it in the 1/4 mile with 3.29:1 gears.

Seems like some of you are making excuses, the magazines aren't "paid off" or whatever. If that was the case, how would MotorTrend, Car and Driver, etc. justify their claims if people (especially other professionals) couldn't come within a tenth or two of their times? They are fast cars, even with an auto.

And MotorTrend and other mags LOVE BMW's but got better performance numbers out of a Acura CL-S than they did the BMW 328ci last year and blatently stated the Acura was faster.

If you guys are worried about GTI VR6's then you should be equally, if not more so worried about the Acura TL/CL's especially the Type S.

MrBurner

i think i speak for everyone when i say that we are not "afraid" of the vw or the tl-s/cl-s but we feel that it is a great competitor for our cars...we only fear you guys as much as you fear us since all of our races with you guys have been just about even

i was just correcting the person that said the 330Ci manual was slower than the tl-s...the 328 was quite a bit slower than the 330 and i believe the 328 is a great competitor for the tl-s/cl-s/maxima

stevepake

This is what doesn't make sense.

MOST mags (4 out of 5) have tested the CL-S at 6.7-6.8/15.1. So how is it that the heavier TL with 35HP LESS is able to run as fast as the CL-S then? You just can't look at one mag and then say with any definity that THAT is the true performance of the car. It's just a single datapoint. Better estimations of performace come from statistics and comparing numbers from multiple mags along with real world results from fellow xyz car driver and seeing how well the results line up.

BTW, as an Accord V6 guy I can tell you personally that the times for the TL you have stated are very inflated.

An Accord V6 has 200HP and weighs about 3300lbs. A 99 3.2TL has 225HP (first year of the redesign) but has the same exact tranny as the Accord V6 b/c the SportShift wasn't available yet. But the 99 3.2TL weighs a good bit more, tipping the scales at about 3500lbs.

Ya know what? Accord V6's have had no problems beating 99 3.2TL's, and our 0-60 times are typically high-7's, not low-mid-7's, and that's all stock too. I can tell you for a fact that the 99 TL is NOT that fast!

These MT times are definitely inflated. Maybe we need to use some sort of "Motor Trend Correction". Like if you state an MT time automatically ADD 0.5s to their 0-60 and 1/4 mile ET to bring it back up to the REAL WORLD instead of the "Motor Trend world" where all cars are 0.5s faster in the 0-60 and 1/4 mile.

I'm not saying they're paid off, but there are lots of things mags can do to *ahem*adjust*ahem their numbers to get the times they want for certain advertisers that want their cars to look good.

And I'm not calling MT's times into question on just Acura's either.

They tested a 2001 Accord V6 Coupe and got a 15.6s ET! No way!!! The REAL performance is right around 16.0s bone stock. Not a SINGLE Accord V6 driver over on the SHO ACV6 board has gotten anywhere even REMOTELY CLOSE to a 15.6 bone stock. We all think that's bullsh!t over there because it hasn't been reproducible. Even with lots of mods we just barely get below 15.5...

MT also tested a 2001 Chevy Monte Carlo SS as having a 0-60 time of 7.3 seconds!!! BUUULLLSSSHH!!!!!!TTTT... One of our ACV6 board member's father has this exact car and both of them are bone stock. They took their cars out on the road and raced just for fun and the guy with the Accord V6 pulled a car or two on the Carlo SS, and he said that there's NO WAY the Monte Carlo SS does 0-60 in 7.3. He said it's more like 8.0s flat.

And now we're seeing TL-S's getting 6.2's/high-14's when the damn ligher CL-S with IDENTICAL DRIVETRAIN only manages 6.7-6.8/low-15's.

So what gives???

Why is Motor Trend consistently getting times of a half-second OR MORE below what every other mag is? Do all of the other mags suck and can't drive their cars worth a ****?? Err...I don't think so.

At least on the Accord V6 board that I look after, our guys stock times have NOT lined up with MT results at all, but rather C&D, R&T, and the other mags besides MT pretty consistently. Our times agree with those mags, and the mags times all agree with each other EXCEPT fro MT which has consistently been the outlier.

I don't know what's going on...but I no longer trust what MT says. If I trust one car mag, it's Car & Driver - their numbers are always pretty accurate and consistently line up with real world numbers that both my Accord V6 clan gets, and these Max guys get too.

Peace.

KyMAXSE

Here is something backing up Steve's argument:

Honda's 60-degree V6 engine is shared between the two cars also, though the motor in the TL is bored out to 3.2 liters and makes more horsepower and torque. The powerplant features dual-overhead camshafts and VTEC valve timing, making 225 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 216 foot-pounds of torque at 5,000 rpm. This output is more than adequate to motivate the 3,450-pound TL. Acura claims the car will go from zero to 60 mph in a shade over eight seconds.

That came from Edmunds.com....

JimW

Car & Driver tends to have the most "reasonable" testing procedures. Read the little disclaimers on C&D's Road Test Digest page, and the one at the top of Motor Trends, and Road & Track. C&D is known as having the most sophistcated testing of vehicles of all the publications out there. They test actual top speed of every car, unless physically impossible to do so. They use uniform methods (testing all cars at the same testing grounds whenever possible) and always using a full load of fuel and the same amount of test gear to minimize discrepancies. I also believe that all of their times are corrected to standard conditions (weather and barometer readings)

stevepake

Actually it's still a SOHC VTEC. The J32A1 (base TL engine) is bored out from the J30A1 (stock ACV6 engine) (3.39in x 3.39in TO 3.50in x 3.39in) and the compression is also bumped up from 9.4:1 to 10.5:1 (thus requiring premium fuel now) and those things are where the extra power comes from

Hey, I *am* the Honda guy here

KyMAXSE

hmm, no kidding, I guessed they missed that....I found the Acura claims of 0-60 in just over 8 seconds to be similar to what you were talking about earlier in this thread.

c5hardtop

Do not mean to complain, but in addition to the maxima numbers maybe being slow, the LS1 numbers are also:
Fbody: 13.4@106
Corvette: 13.1@110
my corvette with CAI: 12.6@112
All of these cars require a 3-4 shift just over 100mph, so 0-100 times would probably be a little faster than what you listed....but the max numbers seem slow too.

Dave B

This is so funny. I give the TL-S and CL-S credit because they are quick cars no doubt. I don't doubt the times MT got out of these cars. No one was paid off. Things everyone must consider is that Acura possibly could have given MT a couple "ringers". This goes on all the time in the auto industry. You guys remember when the Supra TT came out and it was running 13.3-13.4s? Then a year later the mags were struggling to bust 13s out of them. MT questioned Toyota about the performance difference and Toyota admitted giving out ringers because "they wanted thier new supercar to look good". GM did the same thing with the 96 SS Camaro and admitted they gave MT a SS with "experimental" manifolds (ie headers). Point is, this kind of stuff goes on.

I've seen dyno plots of the TL-S and CL-S and it is a bit confusing to me. It appears that the 3.2 VTEC either is overrated or Acura has one very inefficent tranny. Getting a 6.2 0-60 out of a car that weighs 3400lbs and only puts down 190fwhp and 180fwtq doesn't quite make sense to me.

You also have to remember MT corrects thier ets to conditions. This can amount to as much as .3-.4. Most mags don't correct.

As for the TL-S hitting 100mph in 16 seconds and the 5th gen hitting it in 18, it's believable FOR THE CARS THEY TESTED. The tested trap speed of the TL-S is much higher than the 5th gens (98mph vs 94mph). Stock, my car's performance was good. With mods, my car is completely different. I've hit 96mph in 1/4 mile and I usually hit 94mph. None of my times are corrected. If they were, I'd be .20-.25 quickers and 1.5-2.0mph faster. I also know I'm hitting 100mph in much less time than 18 seconds because when I'm going right past the final timing box, my speedometer is nearly at 100mph and this on a 14 second run. I know there is speedometer error, but it's only a couple mph.

I've seen a CL-S run at my track. The guys were even pushing it to the line He was running consistent 15.3s@90 when I was running 14.8s@94mph. Maybe MT did get ringers.


Dave

PhatGuy

I have a short throw shifter on my car and I tell you it takes almost nothing to shift between gears. I believe a STS will shave off .1 on every shift. ie. 0-60 .1 better. 0-90 .2 better etc... Anyways 0-100 in over 17 seconds is nonesense in a 5spd Stock Max!