|
|
|
|
 |
Smokinwurm
 |
|
I thought wavshrdr's arguments were actually quite convincing. All in all I think what he was trying to say is that more things in racing at least rely on skill rather then drivetrain.
Sure those excuses may be lame but on the flip side I haven't heard any decent one's from RWD enthusiasts either using your logic.
|
akal50
|
|
|
It was one of the cars submitted, but as the Counterpoint section mentions, they were very turned off by the torque steer. One guy said he loved the TL and would've voted for it had it not been for that one issue.
|
JeffX
|
|
Check the numbers yourself - in past Car and Driver and Motor Trend tests the J30 and J32 consistently match or beat the comparable (and lighter) VQ35-equipped models.
GhOsT wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Face facts - the VQ gets trumped time after time by the J-series. J30 and J32 equipped vehicles match or beat lighter nissan and infiniti vehicles with the 3.5L VQ, while delivering superior fuel economy, emissions, and refinement.
Comparing VQ35 to the J35, you see that the Pilot has virtually identical acceleration to the Murano, even though the Murano has a CVT tranny (vs 5AT) and the Pilot weighs over 400lbs more. Now you add the gravel mixer operation of the VQ35 (in FR configurations - FF isn't nearly as coarse) and tell me again what's so great about it?
|
If you have facts then show me links please. and please tell me which J32 car trumps a VQ car of same weight and power (don't mention Maxima that car is a disgrace performance wise :D).
|
|
GhOsT
|
|
Jeff wrote:
Check the numbers yourself - in past Car and Driver and Motor Trend tests the J30 and J32 consistently match or beat the comparable (and lighter) VQ35-equipped models.
GhOsT wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Face facts - the VQ gets trumped time after time by the J-series. J30 and J32 equipped vehicles match or beat lighter nissan and infiniti vehicles with the 3.5L VQ, while delivering superior fuel economy, emissions, and refinement.
Comparing VQ35 to the J35, you see that the Pilot has virtually identical acceleration to the Murano, even though the Murano has a CVT tranny (vs 5AT) and the Pilot weighs over 400lbs more. Now you add the gravel mixer operation of the VQ35 (in FR configurations - FF isn't nearly as coarse) and tell me again what's so great about it?
|
If you have facts then show me links please. and please tell me which J32 car trumps a VQ car of same weight and power (don't mention Maxima that car is a disgrace performance wise :D).
|
|
in what world?.
I don't remember the last gen Accord being faster than the last gen Maxima. I don't remember the last TLS being faster than the last Maxima. I don't remember the Accord being faster than the Altima.
However, if I do remember correctly the CLS 6mt was able to match the Altima SE's 0-60 time.....but the CLS needed another 20hp and an extra gear.
no Acura could have matched the G35 numbers until now with the TL. A G35 auto is sufficient to handle any acura I could think of. the G35 6mt matches the new TL's acceleration with 20hp less.
so where do you guys get your numbers?
|
wavshrdr
|
|
Smokinwurm wrote:
I thought wavshrdr's arguments were actually quite convincing. All in all I think what he was trying to say is that more things in racing at least rely on skill rather then drivetrain.
Sure those excuses may be lame but on the flip side I haven't heard any decent one's from RWD enthusiasts either using your logic.
|
If I had to choose one drivetrain for all my driving needs it would be a RWD biased AWD system. I understand the inherent limitations of the FWD platform AND the weight transfer issues it forces under hard acceleration. I am an aerospace/aeronautical engineer by education and I understand the physics of the situation quite well.
If I had to choose though my ideal car that I've had the pleasure to drive it would be the old Lotus Europa my mom had the the twin cam Ford motor in it. It was very light, good mass centralization and a low polar moment of inertia. It was definitely as close to a roller skate as you can get and I COULD drive under a semi trailer with no problem.
I tend to go for mid-engined, RWD cars for their good weight balance and fun to drive factor. The downside is the noisy motor inches from your ears can make for a noisy cockpit.
I will still stand by my earlier comments that I don't think Acura set up to build the ultimate sports sedan. They tried to do the best with the current platform they have without major revisions. It is obvious they know how to build sweet RWD cars but that is not their target audience with the TL. The fact that it does so well agains the RWD cars is a testament to their engineers. FWD is definitely a liability vs. RWD in almost all racing situations BUT how many of you spend your time racing 100% of the time?
My WRX is biased toward racing as much as I can and still legally drive it on the street. Even then it still only sees the track for about 15% of its life. I don't have the luxury any more of having a dedicated race car like when I had old GT series cars like my 510 Datsun and Vette and so on.
So the FWD TL while not the ultimate machine is a very nice all around car with excellent performance. FWD installations tend to be more space efficient and provide more cabin area when done properly. I still prefer cars that have almost 50/50 weight balance and couple that with putting the weight between the axles helps make the car responsive.
As Stretch_6 says and I agree, keep the cars light and I that applies to all cars FWD, RWD and AWD. Mass is the enemy (especially rotational mass) of acceleration. Hell, I even made sure I was on a diet when I was racing every week.
Buy what you like but totally understand its limitations. Get out in the empty parking lot or go to the local autoX course and get to know your vehicle. It will help you far more than buying the fancy 18" wheels that might actually slow your car down than help it. Knowledge, skill and practice = faster lap times! After you get that down go buy your aftermarket parts. Too often people buy hi-po parts to mask their inadequacies as drivers.
|
noelsxx
|
|
|
Amen. Finally, a thread that addresses the logic behind the TL.
|
jwaters78
|
|
|
Listen, I like Infiniti and am seriously considering an FX as my next vehicle. However, your statement that the TSX, TL and Accord all share the same dash is untrue. I bet there isn't one shared button between the TL and Accord (except for maybe power window switches). The radio knobs, sunroof switch, climate control buttons, turn signal stocks, etc. are all different. The dash is design and finish is different in many areas as well. The Accord does not have a "seamless" passenger side airbag cover for example.
|
xspeedy
|
|
I don't understand the blind defense of the TL or the Acura way. You say that the "average driver" won't know the difference. Well, the average driver isn't what Acura's market is supposed to be - the Honda America market exists to satisfy the average customer with hundreds of thousands of Civics and Accords. The Acura market is the enthusiast market, and this market expects more from a car. Acura is intended to compete with BMW and Audi - that is why the Acura line was created. It wasn't created to compete with Ford and GM. Remember that there was no Lexus or Infiniti when the Acura brand was created. The Germans were the targets.
I find that Acura, while improving in some ways, is failing to introduce the types of vehicles that a discerning enthusiast will enjoy. I have owned two Integras (G2 and G3), and while the cars are terrific, I've outgrown FWD. I wish to have the balanced handling that only RWD/AWD can offer. For this reason, I have just purchased a BMW 330i. Had I purchased a hard core sporting vehicle, I would have looked at the Mitsubishi Evo.
I have the feeling that Acura is going the way of Lincoln - offering fairly bland luxury vehicles with lots of features at a relatively bargain price by making over a plebian Ford (Honda).
If Honda was to take the enthusiast seriously, we would have seen an AWD/RWD TSX, and we would have seen the same shift with the TL. We would have also seen an RSX-R and a Civic-R. I just can't get over these so called "factory performance packages" that do nothing but offer silly wheels, spoilers, and sills for some $5K.
|
notyper
|
|
First off, I think the issue is being confused here. In the end, the VQ is a fine engine, but the accolades it receives as compared to other quality engines out there such as the J-series (for one) don't seem justified by the performance, price, size or refinement of the VQ relative to its competitors.
In terms of Jeff's assertion, if you take data from a magazine like Car and Driver, you'll see that generally the J-series cars do quite well next to their VQ counterparts. Just looking at manual transmission cars you'll find:
Car / Power to Weight (rated) / 1/4 mile trap speed
350Z Track / 11.57 / 101
350Z Touring / 11.72 / 100
350Z Vert / 12.03 / 99
Maxima SE / 13.00 / 97
04 TL / 13.04 / 99
Altima (245) / 13.14 / 96
CL-S 6spd / 13.34 / 98
04 Maxima / 13.36 / 95
G35 4dr / 13.56 / 99
Accord Coupe / 13.75 / 98
We could include things like 0-60 too, but RWD vs. FWD throws that off, as does tire choice and gear selection. Trap speed is generally the best indicator of power to weight as it is relatively traction independent. If you put the VQ engines in their own table, you'll see the trap speeds match up pretty well with the power to weight numbers. The only car that violates that rule is the G35 4dr. Like Car and Driver, I suspect its engine is closer to the 280 hp Coupe spec than the standard G35 spec (since the cars ran near identical times for C&D). Such a jump would put it right in line on the power/weight chart.
Similarly, if you put the J-series cars on their own table, things seem reasonable (although we have fewer data points - not many J-series manuals running around). The only foible is the Accord, but we know that on premium gas its underrated (one made 20 hp more than my S2000 on my dyno!). Up the rating to 250-260 hp and it makes more sense. Its only when you put the groups together that you notice the J-series cars doing more with less, so to speak. Is Honda underrating their engines? The CL-S isn't, but we know the Accord is. As soon as we dyno a new TL we'll know more there too, but insider info suggests it too is underrated by about 10 hp.
Simply put, the J-series is an engine that punches above its weight class, to use boxing terms. It matches up favorably with bigger engines with higher hp _ratings_. Much like BMW's I6 motors, which have often been a bit underrated in the past.
SC
GhOsT wrote:
in what world?.
I don't remember the last gen Accord being faster than the last gen Maxima. I don't remember the last TLS being faster than the last Maxima. I don't remember the Accord being faster than the Altima.
However, if I do remember correctly the CLS 6mt was able to match the Altima SE's 0-60 time.....but the CLS needed another 20hp and an extra gear.
no Acura could have matched the G35 numbers until now with the TL. A G35 auto is sufficient to handle any acura I could think of. the G35 6mt matches the new TL's acceleration with 20hp less.
so where do you guys get your numbers?
|
|
GhOsT
|
|
notyper wrote:
First off, I think the issue is being confused here. In the end, the VQ is a fine engine, but the accolades it receives as compared to other quality engines out there such as the J-series (for one) don't seem justified by the performance, price, size or refinement of the VQ relative to its competitors.
In terms of Jeff's assertion, if you take data from a magazine like Car and Driver, you'll see that generally the J-series cars do quite well next to their VQ counterparts. Just looking at manual transmission cars you'll find:
Car / Power to Weight (rated) / 1/4 mile trap speed
350Z Track / 11.57 / 101
350Z Touring / 11.72 / 100
350Z Vert / 12.03 / 99
Maxima SE / 13.00 / 97
04 TL / 13.04 / 99
Altima (245) / 13.14 / 96
CL-S 6spd / 13.34 / 98
04 Maxima / 13.36 / 95
G35 4dr / 13.56 / 99
Accord Coupe / 13.75 / 98
We could include things like 0-60 too, but RWD vs. FWD throws that off, as does tire choice and gear selection. Trap speed is generally the best indicator of power to weight as it is relatively traction independent. If you put the VQ engines in their own table, you'll see the trap speeds match up pretty well with the power to weight numbers. The only car that violates that rule is the G35 4dr. Like Car and Driver, I suspect its engine is closer to the 280 hp Coupe spec than the standard G35 spec (since the cars ran near identical times for C&D). Such a jump would put it right in line on the power/weight chart.
Similarly, if you put the J-series cars on their own table, things seem reasonable (although we have fewer data points - not many J-series manuals running around). The only foible is the Accord, but we know that on premium gas its underrated (one made 20 hp more than my S2000 on my dyno!). Up the rating to 250-260 hp and it makes more sense. Its only when you put the groups together that you notice the J-series cars doing more with less, so to speak. Is Honda underrating their engines? The CL-S isn't, but we know the Accord is. As soon as we dyno a new TL we'll know more there too, but insider info suggests it too is underrated by about 10 hp.
Simply put, the J-series is an engine that punches above its weight class, to use boxing terms. It matches up favorably with bigger engines with higher hp _ratings_. Much like BMW's I6 motors, which have often been a bit underrated in the past.
SC
|
thanks for the reply man. that's the most professional reply I have ever gotten, and I see what you're trying to say. however I don't think it's fair when people go around bashing the VQ and saying that the J-series is better because, honestly all VQ's make the exact amount of HP that Nissan advertises. the G35 sedan isn't underatted as you suggested. there are numerious dynos that prove that the G35 sedan makes less hp than the coupe.
in other words if an accord is advertised at 240 and is really making 250-260, you can't say that it's really better than a 240hp Altima. the Accord weights almost the same weight, has an extra gear, and is pushing more hp, so how could people say that the Accord matches or out performs the Altima if the Altima is still faster than an Accord 6MT coupe?
all I'm trying to say is that people should stop making such comparisons and give respect where it due. I for one think that the J-series is a great powerplant, but I still prefer the VQ for it's raw power and the way it delivers that power.......like I said before ,the VQ is being held back, but there's a rumour that that's about to change soon.
once again, thanks for the reply, I appreciate it :)
|
gilbert
|
|
Honda likes to be conservative and that's ok. In engineering, when you are given a spec, it's always better to build in some margin to ensure that you meet that spec over manufacturing variations. So when they underrate their cars by 10 HP, Honda gives themselves some breathing room. It's bad PR to advertise a car with a given HP rating and not be able to meet that rating. *cough*Mazda*cough. ;-)
Gilbert
GhOsT wrote:
in other words if an accord is advertised at 240 and is really making 250-260, you can't say that it's really better than a 240hp Altima. the Accord weights almost the same weight, has an extra gear, and is pushing more hp, so how could people say that the Accord matches or out performs the Altima if the Altima is still faster than an Accord 6MT coupe?
|
|
Stretch_6
|
|
Well, at least Mazda delivers when they advertise their cars to be sporty. Said Altima, Accord, and TL are rather lacking for their price, save for their engines.
Though, nothing is as insulting as the Camry SE commercials.
gilbert wrote:
Honda likes to be conservative and that's ok. In engineering, when you are given a spec, it's always better to build in some margin to ensure that you meet that spec over manufacturing variations. So when they underrate their cars by 10 HP, Honda gives themselves some breathing room. It's bad PR to advertise a car with a given HP rating and not be able to meet that rating. *cough*Mazda*cough. ;-)
Gilbert
GhOsT wrote:
in other words if an accord is advertised at 240 and is really making 250-260, you can't say that it's really better than a 240hp Altima. the Accord weights almost the same weight, has an extra gear, and is pushing more hp, so how could people say that the Accord matches or out performs the Altima if the Altima is still faster than an Accord 6MT coupe?
|
|
|
notyper
|
|
I think you have to be careful in distinguishing a comparison of engines vs. a comparison of cars. For example, if a 3.0 liter Accord engine is able to push a 3200 lbs car to a faster 1/4 mile than a 3.5 liter Altima engine can push a similarly sized car, we suggest that the 3.0 liter is a better _engine_ in that sort of application.
Whether that engine is underrated or overrated, it outperforms its direct competition, which is, in the end, what is important (or what should be important - we're all guilty of buying the specification sometimes without really knowing what it will do - truth in advertising, etc.).
I think the feeling around here is that the J-series is too often overlooked in the engine world. Sure, its only SOHC, gets great gas mileage, doesn't have the fabulous DOHC VTEC system, or i-VTEC. Yet, for all that, its the smallest engine in its class (dimensionally), produces class leading hp numbers (claimed - its actual numbers are often higher), gets great fuel mileage and propels the vehicles it powers to class leading acceleration times all while remaining smooth, refined and tractable.
Conversely, the VQ gets continual accolades from everyone and their mother. In the early days, the 3.0 liter VQ was indeed the class of the field. But as Nissan has milked the architecture and grown the VQ in size, most will admit that something has been lost. The preternatural smoothness of the early VQ30s, the silky revviness of the engine and the class leading hp have given way to an engine that is coarser, rougher and no longer clearly head of the class in output - yet Ward's and the like continue to applaud it (don't get me wrong, its still a torquey, inexpensive engine with wide application). As Jeff's personal experience with the Ward's engine editor suggests, maybe its for the wrong reasons.
SC
GhOsT wrote:
thanks for the reply man. that's the most professional reply I have ever gotten, and I see what you're trying to say. however I don't think it's fair when people go around bashing the VQ and saying that the J-series is better because, honestly all VQ's make the exact amount of HP that Nissan advertises. the G35 sedan isn't underatted as you suggested. there are numerious dynos that prove that the G35 sedan makes less hp than the coupe.
in other words if an accord is advertised at 240 and is really making 250-260, you can't say that it's really better than a 240hp Altima. the Accord weights almost the same weight, has an extra gear, and is pushing more hp, so how could people say that the Accord matches or out performs the Altima if the Altima is still faster than an Accord 6MT coupe?
all I'm trying to say is that people should stop making such comparisons and give respect where it due. I for one think that the J-series is a great powerplant, but I still prefer the VQ for it's raw power and the way it delivers that power.......like I said before ,the VQ is being held back, but there's a rumour that that's about to change soon.
once again, thanks for the reply, I appreciate it :)
|
|
Phils_Haven
|
|
I know that Money magazine does not carry the prestige of C & D but neither does it have the biases. Money Magazine labeled the TSX the number one best car and labled the TL as the second half of a well turned double play. In other words TSX is the best value overall but the TL fills the gap as a little larger higher end option.
I am considering buying an 04 TL, The vast majority of publications give the TL very High marks. Consumer reports Rates the TL as a best buy and a pace setter in its class as an entry level sports luxruy sedan.
|
Phils_Haven
|
|
I know that Money magazine does not carry the prestige of C & D but neither does it have the biases. Money Magazine labeled the TSX the number one best car and labled the TL as the second half of a well turned double play. In other words TSX is the best value overall but the TL fills the gap as a little larger higher end option.
I am considering buying an 04 TL, The vast majority of publications give the TL very High marks. Consumer reports Rates the TL as a best buy and a pace setter in its class as an entry level sports luxruy sedan.
|
JMU R1
|
|
xspeedy wrote:
I find that Acura, while improving in some ways, is failing to introduce the types of vehicles that a discerning enthusiast will enjoy. I have owned two Integras (G2 and G3), and while the cars are terrific, I've outgrown FWD. I wish to have the balanced handling that only RWD/AWD can offer. For this reason, I have just purchased a BMW 330i. Had I purchased a hard core sporting vehicle, I would have looked at the Mitsubishi Evo.
I have the feeling that Acura is going the way of Lincoln - offering fairly bland luxury vehicles with lots of features at a relatively bargain price by making over a plebian Ford (Honda).
If Honda was to take the enthusiast seriously, we would have seen an AWD/RWD TSX, and we would have seen the same shift with the TL. We would have also seen an RSX-R and a Civic-R. I just can't get over these so called "factory performance packages" that do nothing but offer silly wheels, spoilers, and sills for some $5K.
|
I was just thinking about this last week. Honda/Acura has a problem with failing to provide vehicles for some of their long term customers to move up into. Sort of like a company that has no room to promote bright people, Honda has made many great vehicles that got people into the brand but when these people start making more money or wanting more performance they have to look elsewhere.
Broken record -->
I look at the WRX, RX-8, Evo, STi, 350Z, G35, and others and I think, "At least 5-10,000 of these people would have stayed with Honda if Honda made a product for them." I know for myself there is nothing from Honda that I would buy new except for maybe the S2000. A good number of my friends who've owned Hondas in the past have moved on because Honda didn't give them something to move up into. IMO this is bad.
A few cases in point:
-No Type-R vehicles. We all know there is a significant contingent of hardcore customers within Honda that would snap up either the EP3R or DC5R (even the CL7R maybe). Honda instead figures it can make more profit with less hassle with the HFP/A-Spec. They are right but it is hurting Honda's performance brand equity. The DC2R was the king of FWD and the car everyone used to defend Honda as a whole. Now the standard bearer is the S2000 but there's a noticeable void left in the Type-R's absence.
-No practical proper sporting vehicle. The TSX and RSX go a good ways towards achieving this goal but still, something's missing. Maybe if the Si had a bit more of the Honda (high revving, fun to drive) character or if the TSX had more power (220-240). I feel like there is a good number of people that chose the WRX because it has the power but might have chosen the TSX if it had a LSD and 220-240. I think even more people would've sprung for it if it were RWD but that would've required its own chassis.
The S2000 is a great car, but doesn't make sense as an only car for most people. Marginally acceptable, but hardly what most people are willing to deal with. If we had a RWD 2+2 coupe maybe that'd fit the bill.
-Luckily Honda is starting to fill the luxury void. They have the luxury SUV, they have improved on the midsize lux sedan, and they are poised to revamp the full-sized luxury flagship. With the upcoming RD-X they're ensuring that they'll be one of the first to market with a mini-lux ute (and luckily, the BMW X3 has gotten poor reviews). Now if only they'd get the performance segment right.
-G
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 [3] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
