2010 Acura SH awd 6 mt beats........

[daixloxbmw]

according to car and driver, the TL was driven by "Acura's own hotshoe" with an intimate familiarity with Honda test track.

while the other cars were driven by journalists who were unfamiliar with the track.

"Compared to the TL, the BMW is still the benchmark for balanced handling. At almost every point on the track, either 3-series is perfectly neutral and very responsive to driver inputs. But—surprise, surprise—the TL is quicker around the track than any of the other cars. That’s by Acura’s timing of both its own test driver and of every journalist present at this press event. Given the unfamiliarity with the track and our aversion to crashing, we weren’t driving as hard as Acura’s hot shoe, but the results back up our impression."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...wn+page-2.html

also, +1 on the active steering which does nothing for the track.

[Nikolas]

Originally Posted by daixloxbmw

according to car and driver, the TL was driven by "Acura's own hotshoe" with an intimate familiarity with Honda test track.

while the other cars were driven by journalists who were unfamiliar with the track.

"Compared to the TL, the BMW is still the benchmark for balanced handling. At almost every point on the track, either 3-series is perfectly neutral and very responsive to driver inputs. But—surprise, surprise—the TL is quicker around the track than any of the other cars. That’s by Acura’s timing of both its own test driver and of every journalist present at this press event. Given the unfamiliarity with the track and our aversion to crashing, we weren’t driving as hard as Acura’s hot shoe, but the results back up our impression."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...wn+page-2.html

also, +1 on the active steering which does nothing for the track.

All journalists and Honda's driver drove all the cars. Every journalist was also able to get the fastest lap time out of the Acura. That is what he is saying above.

[Nikolas]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Yes there was a test with a G35 and G35x I don't remember which either, but IF it was on an AUTOCROSS course, it wouldn't surprise me if the X did a bit better, since autox courses are generally very low speed 20-70 mph and full of tight turns where the AWD can power out of earlier.

Again, you can choose to believe that somehow magically the law of physics and and friction and so forth is somehow not an issue anymore and that AWD cars can distribute the power over twice as many wheels, many more friction causing, power robbing drivetrain parts and not lose any more power. Again, you are absolutely free to believe that.

But, if I were you I wouldn't go betting your house that if you took the average 335xi and the average 335i with the exact same amount of weight in them (meaning adding 243 lbs to the 335i) that the 335xi could keep up with the 335i with the additional 243 lbs in a rolling race from 40-130 mph.
You'd lose your house.

I wouldn't also try to write a report of any kind explaining to a science professor or expert that the laws of physics doesn't apply to the AWD cars anymore and that the AWD cars don't lose anymore (or very little) engine power turning 4 wheels and the extra drivetrain components than a RWD car.

Lastly, I don't know where you get your numbers from but suddenly now you think the xi is only 185 lbs less than the i??

Do yourself a favor, go to BMWUSA.com
Look at the spec sheet for the 335i Coupe and then the 335xi Coupe.

Or to save you a bit of time, here's what it says:

335xi Coupe
3814 lbs manual
3825 lbs auto

335i Coupe
3571 lbs manual
3582 lbs auto

Do the math, either way it's 243 lbs.

Clearly you choose to believe the 335xi somehow doesn't weigh 243 lbs more, that it somehow magically belies the laws of physics in all regards (acceleration, braking, steering, and even drivetrain losses).
And that's fine if you want to believe that, you are free to do so. Just like there are people who are free to think GW Bush was a great (or even good) President.

One last thing, here is a quote from Car and Driver ( I think it's safe to say they're experienced in the difference between RWD and AWD in performance cars):
"if you perceive all-wheel drive as a performance enhancement, you're likely to be disappointed. In almost any sedan application you care to name, all-wheel drive adds mass.... and it either provokes or aggravates understeer, the tendency for the car to resist steering inputs as speeds increase."

Take care.

Wow. Sorry if the numbers are messed up. I was going off the specs of a 2007 335Xi sedan where the old weights on the site were 185 lbs apart from what I remember. Now they are 220 lbs apart. Maybe I have it wrong.

I'm not an idiot and certainly don't appreciate your tone through this whole discussion. For the record I have never stated AWD is faster or better in this thread. I have only said RWD is not faster or better. If AWD is such a detriment why is used by most of the sports car manufacturers out there? Have you ever tracked both on real road courses. It definately shows it's abilities and detriments in that venue. Not everyone likes AWD and vice versa.

Also we were never discussing straight line performance here. From a dig it is a known fact that AWD will kick RWD butt. From a roll well duh, the added weight. Place turns into the equation and everything is different. Yes you have added weight, but you also have the ability to better apply traction on exit speed and with systems like the SH-AWD you can go into the turn just as fast as a RWD car and certainly faster than a RWD car with an open diff.

So keep drinking your RWD kool aid and I'll drink mine.

[ManMachine]

Originally Posted by MTV

This comparo is similar to that A4 add where they chose the best A4 and the shittiest competitors.

They slapped on all the best options on the TL and ran it against the base versions of the competition.

marketing ftl

Actually this comparison is more fair than the Audi drive. Notice that Acura didn't use a A4, it used S4. It didn't use 328, it used 335. (i.e., it's not a comparison based on car prices, like what most magazines tend to do.) Whether they did something to the competitions' vehicles or not is a different story, but imagine what the reaction would be if it were found out.

yes we'd take such events with a grain of salt, but there's no need to get defensive. If Acura offers a great product, it's better for the consumers - BMW will need to get the DPC torque vector system to work across the board and put on the sedans, rather than just the X6, and give the xi true sports suspension. Right now the Xdrive is BMW's weakest spot, and Audi's Quattro does a better job and offers sports suspension.

[MTV]

Originally Posted by ManMachine

Actually this comparison is more fair than the Audi drive. Notice that Acura didn't use a A4, it used S4. It didn't use 328, it used 335. (i.e., it's not a comparison based on car prices, like what most magazines tend to do.) Whether they did something to the competitions' vehicles or not is a different story, but imagine what the reaction would be if it were found out.

yes we'd take such events with a grain of salt, but there's no need to get defensive. If Acura offers a great product, it's better for the consumers - BMW will need to get the DPC torque vector system to work across the board and put on the sedans, rather than just the X6, and give the xi true sports suspension. Right now the Xdrive is BMW's weakest spot, and Audi's Quattro does a better job and offers sports suspension.

Yes, agreed. This one is more fair, yet it is similar to the Audi ad.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

So keep drinking your RWD kool aid and I'll drink mine.

It's all good.
As I have said before I have nothing against AWD.
It has it's place and does well in certain areas.
I have said I owned AWD performance cars, as well as RWD.

My debate with you was you stating that AWD doesn't have much (if any) additional drivetrain loss, that AWD cars are superior in track racing and so forth.

In any case, as I said, IF i lived in an inclement climate, yes I would own another AWD.
But it's also interesting how their are people who say RWD car on winter tires work just as good or better than an AWD car on all season tires, when driving in snow.

Bottom line, if I have a choice Ill take the lighter, faster, quicker reacting, better braking, better gas mileage, less expensive RWD car over AWD car as long as I live in a climate that's does not have snow. Which will be the rest of my life.
I just can't imagine owning a car like the Ferrari F430 in AWD, it just wouldn't be the same.

Peace man, enjoy your AWD cars.

[ede92]

I am sure the BMW had 18" tires also - probably Bridgestones - not as good as the PS/2s in my opinion now that I have owned both.

I have owned 2 Acura Legends (and test driven the latest RLs) and agree they stand up better after warranty and are cheaper to fix - BUT - they don't handle or ride like a BMW - any BMW.

[silvrevo]

Inside of the Tl is very nice,, but that front end,,,,,,,,,It blows me away on how some really bad ideas make it to production?

And isnt the TL like 4,000lbs? And torque 270?

It is too bad they dont make anything like a light weight, Interga anymore. Light weight , fun to DRIVE, and maybe get ok mpg.

[shragon]

that's one ugly car

[agh!]

From the article:
"Of course, putting power down with just the rear wheels means the front wheels almost needed to be straight before the throttle could go all the way to the floor."
... and for the 335xi
"the understeer became more pronounced"
implying they had understeer on the RWD version too.

This suggests to me that none of these guys actually know how to drive a RWD car around a corner properly at speed, something that perhaps does take a while to get the hang of.

To roughly quote another journalist reviewing the 135i:
"and I feel a bit of understeer on entering the corner, and do you know what that tells me? Put on more power so the nose tucks in and turns and the understeer is eliminated".
I suspect these guys doing this test Acura / 335i etc. test simply were not putting the power on at the right time to get the most out of the RWD drive train giving them a sense of understeer and taking the corners a good deal slower than they could have done it.

If they don't think a 3 series carves it's way round corners they have not driven it right.

[Robert]

I think they are entitled to their opinions and they have driven the cars. None of us really have any background on them or know them, or even driven the new TL, so we are speculating and spewing more nonsense than they are. My 2 cents

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by bobbo

I think they are entitled to their opinions and they have driven the cars. None of us really have any background on them or know them, or even driven the new TL, so we are speculating and spewing more nonsense than they are. My 2 cents

[flipmde786]

It's a good car, just would be better if it wasn't so fat looking and big (not to mention the styling itself), and more power. But I'm not surprised by its alleged handling performance.

As for the C&D article saying the 3's BOTH had active steering...I think we all know active steering isn't an option on xi's. So how do we know the rwd even had it, if they're making inaccurate statements like that?

[slick101]

Originally Posted by TheAcAvenger

1) the 335i never put the S5 to shame around a track (there's a thread about this, they're always within a half second of each other).

2) An S4 isn't going to be slower than an S5. They're practically the same, and it wouldn't surprise me if the S4 was slightly lighter.

3) There's a thread covering that whole argument

4) I'd say invalid stuff too if I just read that statement, so we'll let it slide. Edmunds needs to take off the acura goggles.

1) i was basing my argument on this video...

.... just getting even if not beating it by half a second with audi's much more expensive v8 is shamefull.. well may be not shamefull but rather disappointing...and what makes it worse is that the 335 can be easily for just a couple hundred bucks and change those numbers ...

2) i see ur point and i agree... i didnt think of it that much...i just got carried away... my appologies..

[ALPINE6SPD]

Originally Posted by TheAcAvenger

1) the 335i never put the S5 to shame around a track (there's a thread about this, they're always within a half second of each other).

2) An S4 isn't going to be slower than an S5. They're practically the same, and it wouldn't surprise me if the S4 was slightly lighter.

3) There's a thread covering that whole argument

4) I'd say invalid stuff too if I just read that statement, so we'll let it slide. Edmunds needs to take off the acura goggles.

1) The S5 is about equal to the 335i at the track is true as I have driven both on the track back to back. The S5 may be a touch quicker but its a drivers race.

2)S4 is slower than S5 and they are far from the same. The Quattro System works TOTALLY different in the S5 than the S4. It is more read drives based in the S5 and the S4 is Front wheel drive based. The RS4 is rear drive based and thats a different story. The S5 is closer to price than the M3 also.

3 and4) I am waiting also