Infiniti G35 vs. Acura TL

tm3 · October 2003

I spent a lot of time researching and test driving both the TL and the G35 (I eliminated Lexus, BMW and others due to cost...) I just purchased a TL 3 days ago for the following reasons:
1. The G35 engine was more spirited for sure but the TL was smoother and more refined---it felt better...
2. The TL interior was elegant and luxurious, the G35 more industrial and cold
3. The TL sound system and satellite radio was a no brainer---it is simply fabulous for anyone who loves music...
4. I liked the G35 styling a bit more but definitely have come to appreciate the TL'stuff...besides, I spend way more time inside my car....

Overall, the TL won handily and yesterday I drove it hard 550 miles over 2 mountain passes and many winding narrow Montana roads and had the most enjoyable drive in my life...

It's a personal decision for sure, but I would most highly recommend a TL! What a delightful package....

TJ

freespec · October 2003

No doubt Honda/Acura makes the best handling FWD cars. It's almost there but not quite yet. One of the secrets to making FWD cars handling better is that Acura manages to keep its relative small engine cranking out more HP every few years without torgue inflation. But the law of physics still rules: evething else same, a RWD handles better than a FWD.

Just for kicks, I'll make Honda/Acura itself as a proving case: the best handling Honda is S2000 and the best handling Acura is NSX: both of them are RWD!

Car manufacturers are in the car business primarily for making a profit. Acura will take in extra $2K for every FWD car it opts to make than a RWD (again, everything esle same). Infiniti stands no chance to selling a viable volume with a FWD (I35 already failed) in the Entry Luxury Sports Car segement. Fortunately the law of physics is sitll atop so Infiniti can live with making less money with G35 because the alternaive is to be a bystander.

Although not a forum for BMW, I'll be happy to trash it whenever I have a chance (just for more kicks): don't call a BMW 3 a winner. In pure performance, EVO or STi beats 3 at its own game feet up. You buy a BMW not for its performance but for the badge. In the long run, the maint cost and repair will more double what cost to other brands. Never race your BMW on any surface because as a race car driver said nothing under $100,000 comes close to a NASCAR bound racer. Just drive it nicely and it's beautiful machine to drive (and rightly feel so after you spend more for less, much less).

I'll buy a G35 w/o a blink given the current prices while you should buy a TL or a 3.

kdshapiro · October 2003

"Although not a forum for BMW, I'll be happy to trash it whenever I have a chance (just for more kicks): don't call a BMW 3 a winner."

There are not a lot of cars in the class that will outperform the 3 series (ZHP) in the total package. The EVO and Sti will handily beat every car in the entry level luxury sport sedan, but they themselves are not in the this class. Might as well get an SVT and blow everything else away. The new 3 series (ZHP) will handily outgun the G35. You pay more for it. But you get more (in and out).

klayfish · October 2003

uncledavid,
Thanks. I'm sure she'll be happy with it. Any your right, it's like Mustang vs. Camaro or Ford vs. Chevy. Each to their own. But I do agree they are great cars, both.

TJ, I personally agreed with your assessements, and that's why I would have chosen the TL myself, even though the G35 is more of a sports sedan in my opinion. But I think my wife got tired of the same thing over and over from Honda and Acura and wants to try something new. I give Acura credit for making some bolder changes with the TL, but if I have one criticizm of them it is for playing it too conservative most of the time with their mainstream cars.

You definitely can't compare the WRX or Evo to these cars. They are apples and oranges. Like kdshapiro said, you may as well take out a Z06 and whip 'em all. Or I'll bring out my FFR Cobra and whip the Z06. It's all personal taste, but like BMW or not, you have to admit they have something good. Why else would all the other makers openly admit that the BMW was the "target" car for them? You hear it over and over. Both the TL and the G35 are aimed at BMW. If I had a lot more money, I would buy a loaded 330xi for her. I do think they are the benchmark, but everyone else is catching up fast.

Steve

03accordman · October 2003

Uncledavid, I apologise if you felt that I did not take all your posts in perspective. I am a regular in these boards and feel that you, along with kdshapiro, are two of the most articulate and reasonable people to be discussing with. I probably got a bit caught up in Kahunah's Infiniti bashing.

pg48447, its surprising that you say Nissan do not have experience building good handling cars, when that's nowhere near the truth. Have you heard of the Nissan Skyline? As I said earlier, one of the reasons that sport sedans are preferred to be RWD is that this platform can handle more torque, while the same can't be said of the FWD platform. That being said, its also true that Honda has raised the FWD platform to new levels, vis a via torque steer. The TSX is probably the best example of an excellent handling FWD, and that is borne by the wildfire like sales. The next RL is said to be RWD/AWD, but that's not confirmed.

graphicguy · October 2003

While I'm certain the '04 will be a good car and styling is subjective, the biggest question I have.....

Why, oh why, can't Honda/Acura style their cars. Upon seeing the TL on the road for the first time, I mistakenly thought it was the new "Malibu". Don't ask me why....it just had that "mainstream" look.

I really want to like Acura, but the G35 is worlds better looking (with about the same performance + RWD).

I'm not in the market, but if I were, I'd spend $34K for the G35 in a heartbeat based on looks alone, over the TL.

No flames intened because I don't own either car....just an observation from a car enthusiast.

kahunah · October 2003

As I mentioned before, I did it to prove a point (see message #150). You and others were just as quick to bash Acura. Keeping things in perspective is easier said than done. It just goes to show you how emotional we can get about some of these issues. And frankly, I though you guys had more of a sense of humor. If anyone actually believed that I thought G35s were getting into serious accidents and bursting into flames all over the place, then I think you need to lighten up a little.

kdshapiro · October 2003

accordman - appreciate that. I enjoy the spirit of the forum and one of the things that make the forum fun is the varied opinions. What I don't understand however, is flaming for the sake of flaming like the post against BMW by freespec in #155 above. At least if you have a negative opinion, state the reasons for the opinion. That's a discussion. You as the reader might not agree with the opinion or assessment, but at least you understand why. In the post above it sounds like this person is mad at his or her self for not being able to afford or missed the opportunity to get a BMW and hence is flaming BMW.

klayfish · October 2003

Hey graphicguy,
34K? What would you say if I told you I was only paying $32K for a 2004 G35 WITH the Premium Package (dual zone climate control, Bose audio, reclining rear seats, auto lights, etc...), rear spoiler AND wood (faux wood) trim interior? Now it really seems like a bargain, don't it???? I love it when dealers bid against each other for month end sales.

Steve

03accordman · October 2003

Thanks KDS.

Kahunah, sure we all need humor, and don't worry about that. The thing though is that I an not a Honda/Acura basher, infact as I mentioned earlier, I own a 2003 Accord that I love and would buy again in an instant. Just that in this particular case, I feel that the G is better, just my opinion.

Keep up the goodwork folks, we are the top rated discussion here.

graphicguy · October 2003

That indeed makes your purchase all the sweeter.

When I was looking at G35s, I was shopping for a G35 coupe. Best I could do was $34K (all loaded up).

Ended up buying something else, but the Gs sure are pretty cars.

kahunah · October 2003

Thanks for understanding. And, just for the record I'm not an Infiniti basher. I think the G35 is a great car, just not my first choice. But, I can honestly say it's a very close second.

uncledavid · October 2003

Thanks for the apology, but it was not necessary. Frankly, I was the one being a bit fiesty there not you. And, your larger point was a good one. There are plenty of trustworthy sources out there (like Edmunds, Motor Trend, etc) that do evaluate the RWD G35 superior to it's FWD competitors.

Let me raise another issue: Ride quality. My biggest beef with the TSX has to do with ride. It handles bumps OK, but the car has a tendency to float over bumps and dips, and the ride is too busy on rippled pavement. I didn't find that to be an issue with the G35 at all (although I only drove it three times, for short test drives) and the ride is nearly ideal in my dad's 3 series.

Because the TL has the same basic suspension setup as the TSX, and also has stiff low profile tires, I wonder if the car will give the composed and steady ride that you get with the G35 and BMW (without the sport suspension).

kevin111 · October 2003

Sounds like a great deal, but please do not keep pounding us with it!

pg48477 · October 2003

Skyline is a grate car but don't forget that Honda have much more experience in the racing world.

Was Nissan bought by Renault a few years ago?

chrisboth · October 2003

A majority share was bought by Renault. Thank god - it brought us Ghosn (sp).

klayfish · October 2003

I had typed a rather smart-[non-permissible content removed] response to your post Kevin, when I suddenly realized what you were talking about. How the heck did that happen??? I swear on my grave I only typed that message once and posted it once. How in the world did it post 3 times???? Oops, my mistake. I think. I'm really confused.

andymsn · October 2003

For purposes of this post, please assume there is no difference between FWD/RWD, and the performance of the vehicles are exactly the same.

Is it my imagination, or is navigation about the only option available on the TL because it HAS everything else already?

I have been doing some comparisons, and it seems the G35 does not include a number of items standard which are included on the Acura (htd pwr mirrors, htd seats, among other things)? I wonder if anyone has done any "similarly equipped" cost comparisons?

Finally, I PRAY for paddle shifters on these cars, if both companies are going to continue with the "autosticks." They would be SO cool on either car.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

bodble2 · October 2003

As you said, "styling is subjective". But you thought TL looks like Malibu?! Well, the only thing I can think of is that you must've had a tough day at the office!

uncledavid · October 2003

The G35 can be had with heated mirrior and seats. Both features are part of the "winter package."

If you equip both cars similarly, I expect the G35 will be cheaper out the door simply because discounts are available on the G35, and not the TL.

klayfish · October 2003

I did exactly that. Comparison shopped for similarly equiped cars. The G35 now comes standard with the heated seats, I believe. But you're right, it doesn't come with standard dual zone climate control, sunroof, and upgraded stereo, like the TL. If you equip a G35 to be like the TL, it's almost dead even. The G35 actually is probably a few hundred dollars more. The TL is $33,195, with the Nav system and just a few trim options. But Infiniti dealers are offering deals. The G35 we're looking to buy is equipped the same as the TL and is about $1500-$1750 less.

Steve

03accordman · October 2003

I agree with you on that, Honda does have a great racing heritage, and this mostly manifests in their engines. I believe Honda makes the best small displacement 4 and 6 cyl engines, just that Nissan have a gem in the VQ, which everyone is trying to emulate, in addition to the overall driving experience that the G provides. The G has been a winner for Infiniti/Nissan and is truly an outstanding car.

Unfortunately, Honda had serious problems with their race engines this year in F1, where their engines were blowing up regularly, and they had the worst reliability all round.

Renault did buy a majority share in Nissan and since ghosn came, things have turned in Nissan's favor. Renault also came back into F1 and there were rumors that they would carry the Nissan name in racing, but in the end went ahead with the Renault name. Renault has had one of their better years in F1 this year, but this does not mean in any that they are better as an engineering company than Honda. I personally think Honda pushes the envelope in engine development and thus make tech breakthroughs.

kevin111 · October 2003

Rereading my post, it can be construed as a little harsh.

BTW, maybe Edmunds thought the post was so good that couldn't have it appear just once! If we see the same post again on this thread, then we will know.

ihaberman · October 2003

For us potential buyers in cold weather climates, a proper comparison will be the TL vs. the G35x (aka AWD). In fact, I'd love to see a C&D comparison involving these two cars, plus the Saab 9-3 (FWD), BWM 330xi (AWD), Audi A4 Quattro (AWD), and the re-priced Jag X-Type (AWD).

With this in mind, the G35x is not as good a value as otherwise described in these posts. It will list for around $38K (w/premium, sport, and nav) - around $3K more than a similarly equipped TL.

I think biggest issue is TL exterior styling. It doesn't look as "modern" as the G35. The tail looks a bit like a Chysler in that the lights are completely red - no white or other offsetting color - similar to the changes the Passat made after its first year). And the front just looks a bit dated - except at night when you'd see the high-lux looking blue light coming your way. I do like the side profile however - very athletic.

Problem with the G35 on the other hand is the interior styling. IMO, the Acura totally blows it away...especially with the super large nav screen which looks quite modern and luxurious, and the subtle use of the aluminum trim.

It's not an easy decision either way.

kevin111 · October 2003

If so, it would be an option to consider. The AWD system in the FX45 enhances its handling characteristics over the base RWD system. According to C&D, the FX45 with AWD - skidpad - 0.85g and 0.87g, while the base FX35 did 0.80g on the skidpad.

ihaberman · October 2003

My understanding is that the G35x is basically a RWD car until it needs to become an AWD car. Not a bad setup.

cheerioboy26 · October 2003

uses the same ATTESA system as the FX.

more info here:

http://tinyurl.com/ond3

bodble2 · October 2003

1. The cheapish interior which has been talked about a lot by others. 2. I don't like the foot emergency brake -- especially inappropriate for a supposedly sports sedan. 3. Hood prop -- not a big deal for many, but IMO, is a cheap cost-cutting measure that shouldn't be found on a car in this class.

One thing I must say, though, Nissan has much better colour choices than Honda. And the AWD option is a big thumbs-up.

ihaberman · October 2003

I agree about the foot pedal on the G...sat in one the other day and had trouble finding a comfort zone for my left foot.

As for color choices, it's interesting in that most people would say the Infiniti is weak in that regard. The only color I like (thank God there's one), is the diamond graphite exterior with the black interior. On the Acura, I prefer the same color combination (dark gray with black interior). Some people like the blue, but I think the only company that knows how to do blue is BMW - all others look a bit cheesy IMO.

My turn-offs on the TL: the side view mirrors don't have the turn signal like the less expensive TSX (it's a nice MB-like touch that could've made the car look more modern and luxurious). Also, the exterior has far less personality than the interior.

kahunah · October 2003

Does the G35 6MT also have the foot emergency brake?

g35_wang · October 2003

1. I like the interior, a lot actually. Very modern IMHO. We got 3 brand new cars in our company, Lexus GS330, Jag X-Type, and my sweet G35, so when I say I like G's interior, keep in mind that I did my homework. But, I admit it all depend on your own taste.

2. I like the styling of G better than TL. I was waiting for 2004 TL too until I saw a picture of TL. The rear styling is just UGLY, and the front, is not any better than the 2003s. That's when I picked up my check book and got the G.

3. TLs did have transmission problems, maybe not anymore, but comparing to Infiniti's relatively minor problems, I'd rather trust Infiniti on reliability. Reliability is one major concern why I turned down all American and European cars.

4. As for handling, I don't really care, but its still nice to know that G will handle better.

My G has about 2500 miles on it and I am very satisfied with it.

kevin111 · October 2003

Now my main gripe about the G35x is that it does not come with a manual transmission!! Nice car!

If it means anything, I preffer the looks of the new TL over the G35 sedan, the G35 sedan over the old TL, and the G35 coupe over all, but loose practicality with the coupe. The new TL seems to have a more aggressive stance than the G35 sedan.

robertr · October 2003

G35 6MT has a hand-operated parking/emergency brake on the console as is proper with a manual transmission RWD sport sedan.

I am very pleased with my G35S 6MT after 11,000 miles. It's a blast to drive in a way no FWD can ever be. My last car was a FWD Maxima SE 5MT which was a great car but I would always choose the RWD setup if available. No matter how good the 2004 TL may be, I can't see where it could be that much better than the Maxima, nor could it possibly be more satisfying to drive than a RWD car like the Infiniti.

Incidentally, there was an aticle in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about how Infiniti's growth in the luxury category (esp. $30K-40K)has far surpasssed Lexus and Acura, and how Honda is operating at a handicap because it's platforms are (mostly) all FWD.

uncledavid · October 2003

The TL is certainly superior to the Maxima, in virtually every category. For one thing, the TL does not suffer from the same level of torque steer as the current model, nor does it have the same questionable interior materialsn As for the previous generation of the Maxima, the solid rear axle impaired ride quality and detracted from handling.

Infiniti has had a lot of growth in the $30,000 to $40,000 price point because they finally have some competitive vehicles in that market range. Their sales before the G35 were pretty weak, so growth is not a surprise. Hard for Acura to experience much growth because they've always been a strong player in that market.

As for being satisfying to drive, that remains to been seen. I expect the TL will be every bit as much fun to drive, but the higher quality interior will make it a more pleasent car to own.

I will be surprised if it rides as well as the G35. I personally find the G35 sedan to be an excellent ride/handling compromise - second only to the BMW 3 series.

pg48477 · October 2003

1990 Legend was a better car than Maxima ever be. Yes Nissan managed to put a good engine in the Maxima, but everything else is cheap just like in Altima.
Malibu handles better than Maxima even SE, big rims and nothing else.

G35 is the first nissan/infinity sedan with good handling it might be better that new TL, performance wise, but it's to early to tell.

As for reliability honda was always better than nissan, and residual value of any ACURA is better that Infinity.

uncledavid · October 2003

I agree with most of your points, but I think the reliablity of both brands is likely to be quite strong. I'll be surprised if the TL and G35 don't both turn out to be highly reliable vehicles.

bodble2 · October 2003

I don't know why they (Honda included) don't just make use a hand E-brake across the board. Why screw around with a footbrake for sedan and/or automatic, and a handbrake for manual. I find foot e-brakes awkward to use, especially the push-on/push-off kind that seems to be in vogue these days. You sit low in a sports sedan or coupe. To lift you leg to operate the e-brake can result in a pulled groin! The worse screw-up, IMO, is the foot e-brake in the G35 coupe automatic. What a waste! Such a beautifully styled sporty aggressive car. You get in and it's got an e-brake that belongs on a Buick!

stickguy · October 2003

the new TL has a hand brake (both trannies) unlike the old one that was foot.

merc1 · October 2003

Been following your comments for a while now. So which V6 engine (Honda/Nissan) do you find to be better? I've driven the G35 Coupe, new TL, 350Z, Altima and other models that have each makers V6 engines, and I have always found the Honda V6 to be smoother, and just generally more refined, if lacking the outright punch of the Nissan V6, in certain models. All this talk about the Maxima's torque steer is really interesting, guess I'll have to try one out, if I can get past the design long enough to drive it.

uncledavid,

We've disagreed elsewhere, but you make good points here. All this talk about the Maxima's torque steer is really interesting, guess I'll have to try one out, if I can get past the design long enough to drive it. Is it really that bad?

pg48477,

A 1990 Legend was better than a Maxima of the day......umm...pretty much I guess. I do know for the 1991 Legend this is unquestionably true. I never understood what the big deal was with the Maxima, especially after the 1995 redesign went backwards in suspension design. They used to actually tout that it could outhandle a BMW 5-Series back in 1995.

M

03accordman · October 2003

True, the Honda V6 feels smoother than the VQ, but in terms of outright performance falls short of it. I think this basically has to do with the higher torque delivered by the VQ. For an everyday driver, more torque means quicker off the line starts and you don't need to rev it too high before getting the power down. Like all Honda VTECs, this one too is peaky and needs high revs.

As for which application of the VQ I was referring to, well, its mostly a state of tune difference, everything else is same. The Altima V6 with a manual does 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, isn't than an outstanding performance for a midsize family car?

The 2004 Maxima does have a lot of torque steer, and I wonder why Nissan has been unable to address it, especially when it was an issue even in the Altima. However, with the VSC/VDC/TCS ON, the torque steer can be eliminated. That said, I would pick the 2003 Maxima over the new one.

klayfish · October 2003

I couldn't have put it better myself. We've had: 1996 Integra GS-R; 1997 Accord EX; 2001 Acura 3.2TL. All had awesome engines, probably the smoothest engines I'd ever driven. But I sold my GS-R because you had to rev the snot out of it to go anywhere. Above 5500 rpm, it went like a scalded cat, but was flat below that. Our TL is the same way. Like you said, lack of torque. Look at the S2000. What an awesome machine. 240hp out of only 2000cc! Just incredible!! But you've gotta beat on it.

Even the new '04TL is that way. 270hp, but less torque. I'll live with the very slightly less refined VQ for her to have more torque off the line. I guess it could be a long debate, but I think that a lot of people who describe their car as "fast" are feeling the torque, not the horsepower.

varmint · October 2003

"For an everyday driver, more torque means quicker off the line starts and you don't need to rev it too high before getting the power down. Like all Honda VTECs, this one too is peaky and needs high revs."

Gotta disagree with that. You simply do not need a bazillion lb-ft to get a 3,400 lbs car moving. More torque would just cause excessive wheel spin and pedal-induced right-hand turns.

As for using the stability control to moderate torque steer, I suppose that is possible. But the control system uses the brakes for that sort of thing. Meaning that the extra torque is wasted.

gregory28 · October 2003

Fellow Posters:

I know this is a mundane subject for the afficionados that post here, but have you seen the new dark blue color for the G-35? If I were buying it- leaning towards the TL- it would be my first choice with the tan interior and real wood. I'd probably add some faux wood to make the interior a bit more rich looking. Speaking of colors, the carribean blue may be the worst color I've seen; I'd place it in the same category as canary yellow- a color I see on the road at times.

uncledavid · October 2003

I don't claim to fully understand all the ins and outs, but I understand that torque steer is a much more significant issue on the Maxima with the MT than the AT. Likewise, torque steer is not much of an issue for the Murano 2wd, perhaps because of the CVT. We may also see some differences in the TL line. I'm also uncertain as to how the LSD on the TL 6MT will influence the situation.

03accordman · October 2003

If you go by need, then you don't even need 160 HP to move a 3000 odd pound sedan. A 100-120 HP engine would do fine. What we are talking about here is sport sedans, and in that context, more HP and torque.

Also, what makes you think that more torque means wheelspin and does not translate into quicker off the line acceleration? As posted earlier, even the base model in Nissan's lineup, the Altima V6, manages to outperform the Honda V6 in ANY application, with similar or less HP figures.

Honda's VTECs need high revving, and its a universally accepted fact. Once they are in their power band, they go like a scalded cat, but in daily applications, one hardly revs up teh engine so high, unless you are at a stop light Grand Prix. The new iVTEC (I4 Accord) is much better in this respect and has resolved the problem to a certain extent.

Traction control makes the best use of power available to control wheel spin, and this translates to quicker starts. Even modern F1 cars use launch control (another version of TC) to get faster off the line starts. In the end it all depends on how well the manufacturer can control the ever increasing HP and torque numbers being generated by new engines. BTW, one of the new AMGs, I think the S55, delivers close to 570lbs/ft of torque. Do you think that is all wasted?

stickguy · October 2003

A freind has this combo, with the wood trim package also. It is very attractive, and works well on this car.

varmint · October 2003

When I wrote "need", I was talking about what the car can handle, not what the driver wants.

Variable valve technologies allow the engine to breathe at whichever rate is most efficient for the engine at a given rpm. In a cam-driven design like Honda's that means (at least) two different rates. That means one that is good for low rpm performance and another that is good for the high end.

If Honda went without a VVT, they would have to pick one rate. Probably a middle ground somewhere between the two, which means that both the high and low ends would be compromised.

You are thinking only of the VTECs from Honda sports cars. Indeed those are high revving engines designed with peak HP as the ultimate goal. That is not the end of the story. Honda also makes engines meant for vehicles weighing over 4,000 lbs.

A better example than the I4 in the Accord would be the K24 in the CR-V, which peaks at a very reasonable 3,600 rpms with 162 lb-ft (not bad for a 2.4L engine). The I4 used in the Accord and Element peaks at 4,500 rpms. Or, you could also use the original engine from the MDX which had the flattest torque curve I've seen in an NA engine.

"Also, what makes you think that more torque means wheelspin and does not translate into quicker off the line acceleration?"

More torque generally does. But only if the tires, drivetrain, and road surface can handle it. There is a point of diminishing returns. Add more torque to a car like the TL and you'll also have to add bigger/stickier tires. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a TL using gobs of torque would lose most stop light races. It would sit there spinning it's wheels until A) the driver lets off the gas, or

traction control brakes the wheels to a near standstill. Either way, you ain't goin' nowhere.

The AMG example you chose probably cannot make use of all that torque without wheel slippage. Traction control will step in, but that is effectively using the brakes to reduce the torque. Once again, the torque is wasted on fighting with brakes. I'll wager that it can use more torque than the Tl, but that is by virtue of the fact that the AMG is a completely different layout with tires and a driveline prepared to handle the power.

Think of what that engine would do in a TL... splatter it on a Jersey barrier.

Find a FWDer that has more torque than a TL and doesn't exhibit problems like Nissan's torque steer, control issues like Saab's Viggen, or front tires the size of those mounted on the back of a Vette or Viper.

03accordman · October 2003

What you are saying that any car with more torque than the TL will be wasting it, since it will only spin wheels. WOW, I can only be amused at your knowledge.

Not all traction controls use brakes as primary means of control. And, pray, could you tell me why a G35 is quicker to 60 than a TL, since it would basically be just spinning wheels off the line?

As for VTEC, I am not saying that Honda should not go with VTEC, actually they should continue to push the envelope. I am just stating a fact. I also was not referring to Honda sports cars (NSX/S2000?) when I mentioned high revs. Even the 2002 Accord needs to be strung to high revs to actually feel the 200 HP in the V6.

Secondly, I am not a fan of FWD cars, so why should I find a car with more torque than the TL? If you read my posts, I have already said that I prefer RWD, exactly for this reason. If you want to go with FWD and then blame low torque on FWD platform issues, do it. I would just take a RWD car and smoke the low torque car everywhere.

Have you ever wondered why the 330ZHP manages a 0-60 time of 5.8s with lesser HP than other comparable sedans? Gearing and torque, and not having to worry about torque steer.

midnightcowboy · October 2003

uncledavid · October 2003

In general, RWD cars get the power to the ground more efficiently than FWD cars.

Infiniti G35 vs. Acura TL

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles