Test drove Acura TL and G35x, a review
#16
08-25-2005, 05:25 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chesapeake Bay, MD.
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea, they are fun and with the adjustable suspension, they are very good handling cars. Do not race a 6MT unless you are modded. They are faster than G's. Interior much plusher than G's. Best front seats in the industry. Awesome 13 speaker Dolby sound system.
That being said, these cars are not perfect. As said above, the back seat is tight (although I wouldn't call them 2 seaters). The adjustable suspension is very "odd". In advanced mode, the car handles great (but too firm to leave the setting there). On the other modes, the car has significant side step over bumps. It's a very hard thing to describe, but the suspension feels "fake". The turning radius of this car is horrible, like a bus. Lastly, I didn't realize how bad Volvo's reliability rating was before I purchased. In the 2004 JD Power list for problems, Volvo ranked 34th, along with cars like Kia and Deawoo. I have good reasons to believe the R's will be very troublesome cars.
My G may not be as sexy looking or as exciting, but I really do like it better.
That being said, these cars are not perfect. As said above, the back seat is tight (although I wouldn't call them 2 seaters). The adjustable suspension is very "odd". In advanced mode, the car handles great (but too firm to leave the setting there). On the other modes, the car has significant side step over bumps. It's a very hard thing to describe, but the suspension feels "fake". The turning radius of this car is horrible, like a bus. Lastly, I didn't realize how bad Volvo's reliability rating was before I purchased. In the 2004 JD Power list for problems, Volvo ranked 34th, along with cars like Kia and Deawoo. I have good reasons to believe the R's will be very troublesome cars.
My G may not be as sexy looking or as exciting, but I really do like it better.
#17
08-25-2005, 05:36 PM
#18
08-25-2005, 05:47 PM
Interesting feedback on the S60R- I looked at, but did not drive the S60R.
I really liked the looks of that car. My brother has an X90, and I didn't like the feel, but the interior is pretty well done.
You talk about the fake feeling suspension, that reminds me of the Mitsubishi 3000 GT VR-4 I need to get rid of. Sketchy is the best word to describe that car.
I really liked the looks of that car. My brother has an X90, and I didn't like the feel, but the interior is pretty well done.
You talk about the fake feeling suspension, that reminds me of the Mitsubishi 3000 GT VR-4 I need to get rid of. Sketchy is the best word to describe that car.
#19
08-25-2005, 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by Konsole
I do not yet own either of these cars but I have been researching and reading (mainly this forum) for a few months. I thought I would give my first impressions of both of these cars given that I dont own a G and am not used to it and can give a first impression comparison without too much bias. (im pretty new the the board, Hi, im 24, live in ames/des moines iowa and just got my com sci degree from Iowa State...)
The models driven: 2005 Acura TL with all the goodies and a 2005 G35x with premium package, nav
Interior:
First the TL...
The TL has a slightly better navigation and larger screen with touch capabilities. The bluetooth is nicely integrated into the steering wheel and nav system. The TL has several types of materials used, my favorite is the carbon fiber looking stuff. The climate controls are also a little easier to use, the driver and pass. have individual controls on either side. The hear/air ducts are not as adjustable as the G. The TL seems to have a lot of buttons. You can spend a lot of time just looking around for buttons. The G at least has a simple elegant flow of gadgets, the TL is more of an airplaine c0ckpit of stuff. Sunroof is similar if not a bit smaller. The seat was a little bit more narrow (im a bit tall, but not overweight by any means) and not as comfy as the G seats. It was a good seat, seemed sportier than most sport sedans. The seat controls are below and to the side like most cars and were easy enough to figure out. (is anyone else sick of the reviews where they cant understand the controls... how hard is it really?) The gauge cluster seems cheap compared to the G, they are black plastic and set very deep. The gauges are blue in color which is neat at first but would get old very quickly, but the gauges dont look as sharp as the G. The steering wheel has several controls on it but and feels roughly the same thickness and diameter as the G but looks a bit clunky and fat (it needs lipo).
The G...
I prefer the G's interior in several ways. The nav isnt as nice BUT it disapears into the dash which i love. The car isnt cluttered with buttons of different shapes yet it has all the features of any other car. The gauge cluster is much nicer and much easier to glance down at and get all the info you need. The seats are more confortable and I didnt seem to even notice the controls in the bolster as many have complained about. The steering wheel is more classy and has more area to grip onto. The TL's steering columb does adust up/down and telescope BUT you have to loosen a 4 inch lever and move it around manually, the G's is electronic which I think is more precise to adjust. (if I am adjusting it from my wifes position to mine I know to telesope it in a smigde and move it up another smidge.. but in a TL you loosen it and it moves all over -- and you have no idea where it was originally).
Handling:
The TL was better than I expected but its still very much a front wheel drive car. suspension seemed softer than the G, but still firm and responsive. Steering was tight but hard to compare exactly due to the drivetrain differences. It was very easy to spin the front tires when launching it (I dont like street racers, I was just getting a feel for it) and it does lurch a bit more than I would like. The brakes are softer and felt more like a lexus es300.
The TL did not body roll too much, but I did not get a chance to really test on S curves or anything very fun.
The G is still the clear winner. The car splits torque with a rear wheel bias and the car stays flat even in aggressive launches. The steering is very tight but doesnt give much feedback to the driver (a trend that I see in most near luxury cars, but I cant expect a true drivers car).
Power:
The TL suprised me. It felt faster than I thought it would. Still my wifes 93 camry XLE v6 (3vz-fe) feels just as fast, even though it probly isnt quite as fast. The FWD just makes all the difference to me. When the front of the car comes up on accel I just feel silly.
The G sounds better. I like the manumatic 10x more in the G... the TL has the 'maze' shifter that looks like crap. As for usage, the G's manumatic will shift back to first gear if you stop (which i like) but the TL does more... it will shift from 1 to 2 for you and will downshift from n to 2 to 1 as you slow down... its hardly letting you do the work! The G feels less abstracted than the TL. If you drive the G like a crazy teen you can really get it to roar and lurch and do whatever. The TL was much more tame, but that might be good for some people.
Exterior: We all like the G better here, so Ill just point out a couple things that I liked and disliked about the TL. First, driver visibility. The G has much nicer visibility. It seems like the hood on the G just goes straight down to the road and its nice. The TL has a very large dash and hood, so you dont get the same im-over-the-road feeling. I like the side markers on the TL which are integrated into a indented line along the car. I also like how the exaust is balanced by putting 1 pipe on either side, but I dont like the square finishers and the notches in the lower bumper for the exaust limit your ability to change where the exaust pipes end up if you decide to go with a new exaust.
Overall, I think the TL is a very nice car. It has many features standard that cost more on the G and is well priced. The largest con for me is the FWD. If you want AWD acura look at the $50k RL... but its a boat and is still front wheel drive biased. (like the G35x is rear biased).
So in conclusion... I will be placing an order for the following very soon...
2006 Infiniti G35x AWD, premium C, Nav, crome 17", 3m-clearbra, mud thingies.. yay!
The models driven: 2005 Acura TL with all the goodies and a 2005 G35x with premium package, nav
Interior:
First the TL...
The TL has a slightly better navigation and larger screen with touch capabilities. The bluetooth is nicely integrated into the steering wheel and nav system. The TL has several types of materials used, my favorite is the carbon fiber looking stuff. The climate controls are also a little easier to use, the driver and pass. have individual controls on either side. The hear/air ducts are not as adjustable as the G. The TL seems to have a lot of buttons. You can spend a lot of time just looking around for buttons. The G at least has a simple elegant flow of gadgets, the TL is more of an airplaine c0ckpit of stuff. Sunroof is similar if not a bit smaller. The seat was a little bit more narrow (im a bit tall, but not overweight by any means) and not as comfy as the G seats. It was a good seat, seemed sportier than most sport sedans. The seat controls are below and to the side like most cars and were easy enough to figure out. (is anyone else sick of the reviews where they cant understand the controls... how hard is it really?) The gauge cluster seems cheap compared to the G, they are black plastic and set very deep. The gauges are blue in color which is neat at first but would get old very quickly, but the gauges dont look as sharp as the G. The steering wheel has several controls on it but and feels roughly the same thickness and diameter as the G but looks a bit clunky and fat (it needs lipo).
The G...
I prefer the G's interior in several ways. The nav isnt as nice BUT it disapears into the dash which i love. The car isnt cluttered with buttons of different shapes yet it has all the features of any other car. The gauge cluster is much nicer and much easier to glance down at and get all the info you need. The seats are more confortable and I didnt seem to even notice the controls in the bolster as many have complained about. The steering wheel is more classy and has more area to grip onto. The TL's steering columb does adust up/down and telescope BUT you have to loosen a 4 inch lever and move it around manually, the G's is electronic which I think is more precise to adjust. (if I am adjusting it from my wifes position to mine I know to telesope it in a smigde and move it up another smidge.. but in a TL you loosen it and it moves all over -- and you have no idea where it was originally).
Handling:
The TL was better than I expected but its still very much a front wheel drive car. suspension seemed softer than the G, but still firm and responsive. Steering was tight but hard to compare exactly due to the drivetrain differences. It was very easy to spin the front tires when launching it (I dont like street racers, I was just getting a feel for it) and it does lurch a bit more than I would like. The brakes are softer and felt more like a lexus es300.
The TL did not body roll too much, but I did not get a chance to really test on S curves or anything very fun.
The G is still the clear winner. The car splits torque with a rear wheel bias and the car stays flat even in aggressive launches. The steering is very tight but doesnt give much feedback to the driver (a trend that I see in most near luxury cars, but I cant expect a true drivers car).
Power:
The TL suprised me. It felt faster than I thought it would. Still my wifes 93 camry XLE v6 (3vz-fe) feels just as fast, even though it probly isnt quite as fast. The FWD just makes all the difference to me. When the front of the car comes up on accel I just feel silly.
The G sounds better. I like the manumatic 10x more in the G... the TL has the 'maze' shifter that looks like crap. As for usage, the G's manumatic will shift back to first gear if you stop (which i like) but the TL does more... it will shift from 1 to 2 for you and will downshift from n to 2 to 1 as you slow down... its hardly letting you do the work! The G feels less abstracted than the TL. If you drive the G like a crazy teen you can really get it to roar and lurch and do whatever. The TL was much more tame, but that might be good for some people.
Exterior: We all like the G better here, so Ill just point out a couple things that I liked and disliked about the TL. First, driver visibility. The G has much nicer visibility. It seems like the hood on the G just goes straight down to the road and its nice. The TL has a very large dash and hood, so you dont get the same im-over-the-road feeling. I like the side markers on the TL which are integrated into a indented line along the car. I also like how the exaust is balanced by putting 1 pipe on either side, but I dont like the square finishers and the notches in the lower bumper for the exaust limit your ability to change where the exaust pipes end up if you decide to go with a new exaust.
Overall, I think the TL is a very nice car. It has many features standard that cost more on the G and is well priced. The largest con for me is the FWD. If you want AWD acura look at the $50k RL... but its a boat and is still front wheel drive biased. (like the G35x is rear biased).
So in conclusion... I will be placing an order for the following very soon...
2006 Infiniti G35x AWD, premium C, Nav, crome 17", 3m-clearbra, mud thingies.. yay!
Colin.
#20
08-26-2005, 08:26 AM
A S60R 6mt is not faster than a G35.
Originally Posted by DP03
Yea, they are fun and with the adjustable suspension, they are very good handling cars. Do not race a 6MT unless you are modded. They are faster than G's. Interior much plusher than G's. Best front seats in the industry. Awesome 13 speaker Dolby sound system.
That being said, these cars are not perfect. As said above, the back seat is tight (although I wouldn't call them 2 seaters). The adjustable suspension is very "odd". In advanced mode, the car handles great (but too firm to leave the setting there). On the other modes, the car has significant side step over bumps. It's a very hard thing to describe, but the suspension feels "fake". The turning radius of this car is horrible, like a bus. Lastly, I didn't realize how bad Volvo's reliability rating was before I purchased. In the 2004 JD Power list for problems, Volvo ranked 34th, along with cars like Kia and Deawoo. I have good reasons to believe the R's will be very troublesome cars.
My G may not be as sexy looking or as exciting, but I really do like it better.
That being said, these cars are not perfect. As said above, the back seat is tight (although I wouldn't call them 2 seaters). The adjustable suspension is very "odd". In advanced mode, the car handles great (but too firm to leave the setting there). On the other modes, the car has significant side step over bumps. It's a very hard thing to describe, but the suspension feels "fake". The turning radius of this car is horrible, like a bus. Lastly, I didn't realize how bad Volvo's reliability rating was before I purchased. In the 2004 JD Power list for problems, Volvo ranked 34th, along with cars like Kia and Deawoo. I have good reasons to believe the R's will be very troublesome cars.
My G may not be as sexy looking or as exciting, but I really do like it better.
#21
08-26-2005, 09:42 AM
it appears to me to be that the G35 is the "sport lux" (as has been mentioned before) car at a good value for "fun driving"
the TL is a "lux sport" car that has the best interior in its class and isnt as much fun to drive but has more "pampering the driver" aspects.
and the BMW 3series does nothing the best but more things completely, thus the premium price. it really is a combo of the 2.
with the TL and G35 your sacrificing something...maybe not much, but somthing. either interior upgrades, a great stereo or the "fun" factor of driving, the need for speed or great handling and performance. the 3series does it all well, but again, for that you pay
the TL is a "lux sport" car that has the best interior in its class and isnt as much fun to drive but has more "pampering the driver" aspects.
and the BMW 3series does nothing the best but more things completely, thus the premium price. it really is a combo of the 2.
with the TL and G35 your sacrificing something...maybe not much, but somthing. either interior upgrades, a great stereo or the "fun" factor of driving, the need for speed or great handling and performance. the 3series does it all well, but again, for that you pay
#22
08-26-2005, 10:08 AM
#23
08-26-2005, 10:48 AM
#24
08-26-2005, 11:30 AM
#26
08-26-2005, 12:19 PM
#27
08-26-2005, 02:10 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chesapeake Bay, MD.
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G35_TX
A S60R 6mt is not faster than a G35.
#28
08-26-2005, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by DP03
And you base that on what? I'm not a mag racer, but for lack of anything better right now, the mags run a 0-60 of 5.4 secs for the Volvo. The Volvo has 300 hp stock, and just about the same tq. Additionally, with it's turbo, that torque is available very early on, and accross the band. And I can say this, too. The Volvo, for whatever reason, does not launch well. So that 5.4 secs is probably with a launch that the G could better.....
#29
08-26-2005, 06:31 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chesapeake Bay, MD.
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't get into a pissing contest over which car is faster. The Volvo does LOW 14's stock, much like the G. The closest mag to my desk doesn't have the R sedan listed, but has the heavy wagon at 14.4 at 99.2 (M/T 7/05). The sedan is lighter and faster. More than likely it would end up a driver's race.
That being said, I WILL correct you on your other comment. AWD DOES NOT help all cars 0-60. In fact, it often hurts. I don't know how much track experience you have, but I have quite a bit. The fastest 60' times at the track come from RWD automatics. In the perfect world, with maybe 600 hp and a bitchen drivetrain, yes, AWD would be beneficial. But with most street cars the vehicle either bogs or sometimes the clutches are not up to 5000 rpm dumps. Just ask the EVO or STI crowd about that. The Volvo R guys typically end up with 2.2 to 2.3 60' times, which suck. I'm sure the G is capable of better.
Here's a pic of me in my RWD Camaro (driven to and from the track, never on a trailer)pulling a 1.48 60'. When's the last time you saw a 1.4x from an AWD street car?
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dbeofam/Dave3.JPG
That being said, I WILL correct you on your other comment. AWD DOES NOT help all cars 0-60. In fact, it often hurts. I don't know how much track experience you have, but I have quite a bit. The fastest 60' times at the track come from RWD automatics. In the perfect world, with maybe 600 hp and a bitchen drivetrain, yes, AWD would be beneficial. But with most street cars the vehicle either bogs or sometimes the clutches are not up to 5000 rpm dumps. Just ask the EVO or STI crowd about that. The Volvo R guys typically end up with 2.2 to 2.3 60' times, which suck. I'm sure the G is capable of better.
Here's a pic of me in my RWD Camaro (driven to and from the track, never on a trailer)pulling a 1.48 60'. When's the last time you saw a 1.4x from an AWD street car?
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dbeofam/Dave3.JPG
Last edited by DP03; 08-26-2005 at 06:39 PM.
#30
08-26-2005, 07:30 PM
I have raced my friends coupe many times with the same outcome. G has a very nice look at my rear end. He had plenty of time to read dorky "VOLVO" logo. Both 6spd from 0-120. S60 kills until 100 then g starts pullin, not enough though.
I did a clutch dump from 4500rpm and had 2 1/2 car lengths by 80.
G does better on runs from 60 but still lags behind by a wee bit.
I did a clutch dump from 4500rpm and had 2 1/2 car lengths by 80.
G does better on runs from 60 but still lags behind by a wee bit.