Honda-Acura obviously gunning for M3/S4/Viggen/Aero/T5/T6/C43
01-07-2000, 08:36 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
but....
remember that, although they're fairly accurate and consistent (when done right), they're optomistic due to "squat" of the car. The S4 will probably get very optomistic readings because it is:
a) high powered
b) relatively soft suspension for it's class (i emphasize *relatively*)
c) you can launch HARD from the quattro
all these things will rock the car back and tilt the gtech. Your 5.3-5.5 0-60's are probably 5.6-5.9 sec 0-60's (nothing to sneeze at
)
Brad
a) high powered
b) relatively soft suspension for it's class (i emphasize *relatively*)
c) you can launch HARD from the quattro
all these things will rock the car back and tilt the gtech. Your 5.3-5.5 0-60's are probably 5.6-5.9 sec 0-60's (nothing to sneeze at
)Brad
01-07-2000, 08:46 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hang on a second.....
I am a Honda/Acura fan, as well as an Audi fan.
I agree that the styling of the CL leaves a little to be desired, but it follows typical Honda of America styling.
Wait and see what the car runs when magazines get one... The times Acura(Honda) quote are always VERY conservative, and all Hondas (like Audis) get significanly faster once properly broken in. The US Integra Type R was advertised and magazine tested with a 15.1 second quarter mile, yet they commonly run .5 to .7 seconds faster than that once several thousand miles are on them.
As for the Type S designation, Honda has been using that in Japan since 1962. NSU and Auto Union merged in 1969 forming Audi NSU, well after Honda started making cars. The first S-cars were around in the early 1990's, so don't EVEN go there.
The CL Type S and the rumored TL Type S will be offered with a 5 speed Sportshift transmission (Honda-speak for Tiptronic). Both are US-based and US-Built cars, thus keeping the costs low, hence the 30-32,000 price range.
Not trying to be rude, but get your facts straight before making bold statements. Many an Audi driver previously owned a Honda product.... and many of them are on this board. It irks me to see people openly bash another product without knowing knowing facts. Thanks for hearing me rant, and have a good day....
I agree that the styling of the CL leaves a little to be desired, but it follows typical Honda of America styling.
Wait and see what the car runs when magazines get one... The times Acura(Honda) quote are always VERY conservative, and all Hondas (like Audis) get significanly faster once properly broken in. The US Integra Type R was advertised and magazine tested with a 15.1 second quarter mile, yet they commonly run .5 to .7 seconds faster than that once several thousand miles are on them.
As for the Type S designation, Honda has been using that in Japan since 1962. NSU and Auto Union merged in 1969 forming Audi NSU, well after Honda started making cars. The first S-cars were around in the early 1990's, so don't EVEN go there.
The CL Type S and the rumored TL Type S will be offered with a 5 speed Sportshift transmission (Honda-speak for Tiptronic). Both are US-based and US-Built cars, thus keeping the costs low, hence the 30-32,000 price range.
Not trying to be rude, but get your facts straight before making bold statements. Many an Audi driver previously owned a Honda product.... and many of them are on this board. It irks me to see people openly bash another product without knowing knowing facts. Thanks for hearing me rant, and have a good day....
01-07-2000, 09:15 AM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Maybe 328i or A4 but not S4/M3..
>First of all that thing is ugly. Second, its >claimed 0-60 time of 5.8 is well off the pace of >the S4, the old M3 and will likely be a full >second slower than the new M3.
5.8 well off the pace? If that's the case how can you compare that to the BMW 328i or the A4 which would be well off the pace relative to the CL/TL?
5.8 well off the pace? If that's the case how can you compare that to the BMW 328i or the A4 which would be well off the pace relative to the CL/TL?
01-07-2000, 09:31 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
The important question is the torque ...
The important question here, aside from the obvious ones such as front-wheel-drive (yuch and Honda's goofy sport-shift, is the question of how broad the power band is, i.e., what is the low-end torque.
The critical fact about Honda's VTEC is that instead of using it to broaden the power band, as most people would expect, they used it to optimize the peak power, resulting in a car that is barely driveable. Anyone that has ever driven one of those cars or that has even looked at the torque specs knows this to be true. When the first introduced the current 3.2TL with Sport Shift the driveablity was so poor and was so universally criticized that for the 2000 model they added a gear to the tranny and re-tuned the engine. Now they are supposedly going to get 260 Hp out of the same engine? Is there anyone out there that hasn't already figured out that the torque number on this engine will be dismal and that the driveability will be nearly intolerable?
The critical fact about Honda's VTEC is that instead of using it to broaden the power band, as most people would expect, they used it to optimize the peak power, resulting in a car that is barely driveable. Anyone that has ever driven one of those cars or that has even looked at the torque specs knows this to be true. When the first introduced the current 3.2TL with Sport Shift the driveablity was so poor and was so universally criticized that for the 2000 model they added a gear to the tranny and re-tuned the engine. Now they are supposedly going to get 260 Hp out of the same engine? Is there anyone out there that hasn't already figured out that the torque number on this engine will be dismal and that the driveability will be nearly intolerable?