C&D Comparo July 2002: 2003 Acura CLS vs. BMW 330Ci
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
C&D Comparo July 2002: 2003 Acura CLS vs. BMW 330Ci
I thought to bring back some memories here:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hobson's Choice*
Value versus charisma? Go figure.
BY BROCK YATES
July 2002
* Thomas Hobson (circa 1544-1630) was an innkeeper and stagecoach driver in Cambridge, England, who rented horses to students at the university and forced them to take the one nearest the stable door, regardless of its age or condition. Hence, "Hobson's choice" was no choice at all.
Talk about an insane situation. Normally in comparison tests, our ace team of power pundits quickly culls the wheat from the chaff, leaving a relatively limited candidacy for the overall victory. Potential winners often include an Acura or a BMW—presuming they are included in the starting lineup. But what happens if these two champions go head-to-head, with no other contenders, leaving our aforementioned pettifoggers to lay down a simple verdict? Win or lose. A thumbs up or down for a pair of brands that have dominated our 10Best balloting like no others except Acura's parent, Honda.
Be reminded that since 1990 the Acuras and the BMWs have been 1000-pound gorillas in 10Best. BMWs of various iterations have won 18 times over that time span, and Acura has been victorious six times (although if parent Honda is included, the total rises to an impressive 28). Suffice it to say that the products from Munich and Hamamatsu/Marysville, Ohio, rank among our all-time favorites. And based on their booming sales, U.S. consumers concur.
The original plans for this test involved Volvo and Saab, both of which offered entries in this class of mid-priced, four-place, manual-gearbox sporty two-doors. Then Volvo announced that its front-drive C70 hardtop was headed for the big scrap yard in the sky, and Saab followed shortly thereafter, passing the word that its aging 9-3 Viggen would also disappear from showrooms. That left us with a pair of entries: the BMW 330Ci, which is a well-known favorite among this staff, having won 10Best honors for the past two years; and a major challenger from Acura, the 3.2CL Type-S, with a new, very slick six-speed tranny.
Although the two rivals appear similar in size, weight, and potential performance, one major discrepancy leapt off the specification sheets: The price on the dreaded Monroney sticker for the Bimmer was $7448 more than for the Acura ($33,180 versus $40,628). If we determined that the BMW was the more appealing of the two, how would we transmit this opinion without being accused of shameless shilling and toadyism on behalf of the Bavarian Motor Works?
The seven-large number loomed ominously as our small team loaded up and headed south toward our favored stomping grounds in rural Ohio. The mission was to determine if a master of technology and legendary performance (Acura/Honda) could knock off the icon of crazed, unfettered enthusiast motoring (you know who). After three days of lashing these worthies through the hills and hummocks of the Buckeye State, we faced the same dilemma as when we started: how to pick a winner. As the following will reveal, both machines are massively appealing, and both possess excellent performance, nimble handling, superb quality, and enough visceral mojo to raise the pulses of even the wild and crazy guys at Consumer Reports.
We hope the results speak for themselves, as controversial as they might seem at first glance. Surely, ol' Tom Hobson would understand.
Second Place
Acura 3.2CL Type-S
We were initially underwhelmed with the Acura 3.2CL Type-S, perhaps because it was shod in notably ordinary bodywork compared with the snazzy, tightly integrated BMW, and perhaps because we had low expectations regarding its ability—as a front-driver—to run with the Bimmer in the twisty stuff.
Although the impression persisted that the Acura design team might have shown a bit more leg with regard to the Acura's externals, our reservations about its handling went out the window after the first curve was negotiated. The car's spanking-new helical limited-slip differential produces an amazing transformation that conceals any suggestion that it is a front-driver. Logged one tester after a hard pass through a series of switchbacks, "Phobic about front drive, bud? Try this! I got your front drive right here!" Another notation: "Love the way this bites into corners. The limited slip really works. Inspires lots of confidence."
Perhaps a 10/10ths all-out thrash on a racetrack might reveal front-drive handling quirks such as torque steer and latent understeer owing to the CL's 60/40 weight distribution. But brisk highway travel (7-8/10ths) offers up a package with predictable, neutral handling and minimal body roll. The Acura CL is simply the finest-handling front-drive road car we've ever tested.
The SOHC all-aluminum VTEC V-6 produces 260 horsepower through a broad torque range and offers the bonus of a lusty exhaust grumble under hard acceleration. It is hooked to an all-new, cable-operated six-speed gearbox that permits 80-mph cruising speeds with the tach loitering at 2750 rpm in top gear. But one puzzles: Is the extra cog really needed, or is it more technological gadgetry like four-wheel steering? Although the six-speed is a pleasure, the five-speed onboard the BMW is every bit as effective in seeking maximum performance and only boosts the revs at 80 mph to a modest 3200. The BMW also produces more miles per gallon (30 versus 28) based on EPA highway numbers. So what's the point of six speeds, other than to expect seven or more in some pointless race for a bigger number?
Aside from a clutch that bites a bit impolitely on takeoffs and some mild gripes about sun glare from the optional $2150 OnStar GPS navigation system, there is little to criticize about the Acura's engineering. The fit and finish is standard Acura, i.e., jewel-like. Back-seat room is surprisingly commodious, and access is enhanced by an automatic power front seat that slides when the seatback is moved forward. Although both cars offer surprising rear-seat accommodations for even a pair of six-footers, the Acura scored slightly better, thanks to a higher roofline. But make no mistake, the Acura 3.2CL and the BMW 330Ci are legitimate four-place grand-tourers, not faux two-plus-twos with back seats suitable only for small children and Toulouse-Lautrec's relatives.
Compared with the BMW's typically fussy and complex instrument controls, the Acura's are logical and user-friendly. The large windshield and the rather tall cabin offer excellent visibility and sightlines.
If there are shortcomings in the CL's package, they fall into two categories, one based on empirical evidence, the other purely subjective. The latter deals with the styling, which seems tall compared with the BMW (although the car is actually 0.6 inch lower than the Bimmer) and borderline banal as a shape sheathing such an excellent package.
The test track revealed numbers that can only be related to a simple lack of rubber. The Acura's 215/50VR-17 Michelin Pilots are substantially skinnier than the Bimmer's Continentals (225/ 45ZR-17 in front and 245/40ZR-17 rear). Although the Acura's skidpad performance was minimally better (0.86 versus 0.85), the CL was way off the mark in the emergency-lane-change maneuver (60.5 mph versus 63.9 mph) and worse by 11 feet (178 feet versus 167 feet) in the 70-to-0-mph braking test. Although the acceleration numbers were essentially identical, a slight advantage in the BMW's content count doomed the Acura CL to being runner-up by a lousy single point, its massive advantages in the price department notwithstanding. A cop-out? Another rollover in the face of the BMW image juggernaut? Read on before you decide.
First Place
BMW 330Ci
This is getting as tiresome for us as it is for you—another notch in BMW's gun following one of our comparison tests. But what do we do? We drive 'em. We test 'em. We report. We (not you) decide. We puzzle over how these Bavarians keep machines in their 3- and 5-series stables on top of the heap, at least in the realm of enthusiast drivers like us. To be sure, the Acura 3.2CL Type-S is one superb automobile, but it was facing off against a BMW packed to the doorsills with not only great engineering but also enough charisma to crash a Hollywood Oscar party. A tough combination to beat, especially when it bolsters its image with raw, sideways-by-the-silo driving fun.
The Verdict
Highs: A beautifully integrated amalgam of high-performance, comfort, and sinful pleasure.
Lows: Eye-watering sticker shock; fussy, button-pocked instrument panel.
The Verdict: What price glory? A bargain in this case.
Let's get past the negatives first. Why do German cars possess instrument panels with as many buttons, switches, and dials as an offshore oil rig? The Acura's panel, on the other hand, is clean, simple, and logical.
Although the Bimmer hooks up with crablike resolve in the corners, it produces considerably more body roll than the Acura. This might have gone unnoticed had we not switched back and forth repeatedly between the two machines. The BMW is a joy to drive, but even with its onboard yaw control (offered with traction control, both of which the Acura lacked), it creates the illusion of slight wobbliness in the corners despite the high velocities that can be maintained.
Beyond that, the 330Ci is an unmitigated hoot. We have prattled endlessly about the 3-series overall and the 330i in particular regarding their inherent driving pleasures, and it borders on pointless to repeat the accolades here. Leave it at this: The 330Ci remains the finest mid-size sporting two-door on the planet, despite a valiant effort by the Acura gang to displace it.
But still, the nagging issue of the extra seven grand must be dealt with. For openers, the BMW has a minuscule edge in performance (0.1 second to 60, 0.2 in the quarter, and the already noted advantage in braking and lane changing). Beyond that, the 330Ci comes standard with stability and traction controls, neither of which is available on the six-speed Acura.
Moreover, there was general agreement that the BMW seats are more comfortable. Our drivers felt more integrated into the overall machine than we did in the Acura. "I feel much more tucked into the BMW cockpit, as opposed to feeling slightly perched on the Acura seat," noted one staffer. Another said, "The seats have a comfort edge on the Acura's, with longer, adjustable bottom cushions, more padding, better bolsters."
A scribble in the BMW test logbook about summed it up: "There is a boyish enthusiasm about this thing that is eternally endearing. Price-wise, it's hard to justify another seven grand, but damn, it's a complete machine. It's hard not to love. The slickness of the controls and the handling, coupled with the faintly guttural exhaust note at speed, only adds to the appeal. But the question nags, is it worth the extra thousands?"
After 700 miles of hard driving, we say yes. Not an unqualified yes, because the Acura is a worthy challenger and because the issue of value is (1) subjective and (2) dependent on the vagaries of the used-car market. BMWs and Acuras both tend to hold up reasonably well in the resale wars. Based on one leasing program we consulted, the two vehicles, after three years, are expected to retain a residual value of 59 percent of the original price for the BMW and 51 percent for the Acura. These numbers vary, of course, based on geographical location, option levels, wear and tear, mileage, and other criteria and only offer a general gauge of value.
So we declare another victory, albeit a razor-thin one, for BMW. You may recall that we similarly honored its four-door brother in our February "36 on the Floor" comparo. But the gap steadily narrows, and it may be only a matter of time before the king is dethroned. When and if that happens, you'll be the first to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hobson's Choice*
Value versus charisma? Go figure.
BY BROCK YATES
July 2002
* Thomas Hobson (circa 1544-1630) was an innkeeper and stagecoach driver in Cambridge, England, who rented horses to students at the university and forced them to take the one nearest the stable door, regardless of its age or condition. Hence, "Hobson's choice" was no choice at all.
Talk about an insane situation. Normally in comparison tests, our ace team of power pundits quickly culls the wheat from the chaff, leaving a relatively limited candidacy for the overall victory. Potential winners often include an Acura or a BMW—presuming they are included in the starting lineup. But what happens if these two champions go head-to-head, with no other contenders, leaving our aforementioned pettifoggers to lay down a simple verdict? Win or lose. A thumbs up or down for a pair of brands that have dominated our 10Best balloting like no others except Acura's parent, Honda.
Be reminded that since 1990 the Acuras and the BMWs have been 1000-pound gorillas in 10Best. BMWs of various iterations have won 18 times over that time span, and Acura has been victorious six times (although if parent Honda is included, the total rises to an impressive 28). Suffice it to say that the products from Munich and Hamamatsu/Marysville, Ohio, rank among our all-time favorites. And based on their booming sales, U.S. consumers concur.
The original plans for this test involved Volvo and Saab, both of which offered entries in this class of mid-priced, four-place, manual-gearbox sporty two-doors. Then Volvo announced that its front-drive C70 hardtop was headed for the big scrap yard in the sky, and Saab followed shortly thereafter, passing the word that its aging 9-3 Viggen would also disappear from showrooms. That left us with a pair of entries: the BMW 330Ci, which is a well-known favorite among this staff, having won 10Best honors for the past two years; and a major challenger from Acura, the 3.2CL Type-S, with a new, very slick six-speed tranny.
Although the two rivals appear similar in size, weight, and potential performance, one major discrepancy leapt off the specification sheets: The price on the dreaded Monroney sticker for the Bimmer was $7448 more than for the Acura ($33,180 versus $40,628). If we determined that the BMW was the more appealing of the two, how would we transmit this opinion without being accused of shameless shilling and toadyism on behalf of the Bavarian Motor Works?
The seven-large number loomed ominously as our small team loaded up and headed south toward our favored stomping grounds in rural Ohio. The mission was to determine if a master of technology and legendary performance (Acura/Honda) could knock off the icon of crazed, unfettered enthusiast motoring (you know who). After three days of lashing these worthies through the hills and hummocks of the Buckeye State, we faced the same dilemma as when we started: how to pick a winner. As the following will reveal, both machines are massively appealing, and both possess excellent performance, nimble handling, superb quality, and enough visceral mojo to raise the pulses of even the wild and crazy guys at Consumer Reports.
We hope the results speak for themselves, as controversial as they might seem at first glance. Surely, ol' Tom Hobson would understand.
Second Place
Acura 3.2CL Type-S
We were initially underwhelmed with the Acura 3.2CL Type-S, perhaps because it was shod in notably ordinary bodywork compared with the snazzy, tightly integrated BMW, and perhaps because we had low expectations regarding its ability—as a front-driver—to run with the Bimmer in the twisty stuff.
Although the impression persisted that the Acura design team might have shown a bit more leg with regard to the Acura's externals, our reservations about its handling went out the window after the first curve was negotiated. The car's spanking-new helical limited-slip differential produces an amazing transformation that conceals any suggestion that it is a front-driver. Logged one tester after a hard pass through a series of switchbacks, "Phobic about front drive, bud? Try this! I got your front drive right here!" Another notation: "Love the way this bites into corners. The limited slip really works. Inspires lots of confidence."
Perhaps a 10/10ths all-out thrash on a racetrack might reveal front-drive handling quirks such as torque steer and latent understeer owing to the CL's 60/40 weight distribution. But brisk highway travel (7-8/10ths) offers up a package with predictable, neutral handling and minimal body roll. The Acura CL is simply the finest-handling front-drive road car we've ever tested.
The SOHC all-aluminum VTEC V-6 produces 260 horsepower through a broad torque range and offers the bonus of a lusty exhaust grumble under hard acceleration. It is hooked to an all-new, cable-operated six-speed gearbox that permits 80-mph cruising speeds with the tach loitering at 2750 rpm in top gear. But one puzzles: Is the extra cog really needed, or is it more technological gadgetry like four-wheel steering? Although the six-speed is a pleasure, the five-speed onboard the BMW is every bit as effective in seeking maximum performance and only boosts the revs at 80 mph to a modest 3200. The BMW also produces more miles per gallon (30 versus 28) based on EPA highway numbers. So what's the point of six speeds, other than to expect seven or more in some pointless race for a bigger number?
Aside from a clutch that bites a bit impolitely on takeoffs and some mild gripes about sun glare from the optional $2150 OnStar GPS navigation system, there is little to criticize about the Acura's engineering. The fit and finish is standard Acura, i.e., jewel-like. Back-seat room is surprisingly commodious, and access is enhanced by an automatic power front seat that slides when the seatback is moved forward. Although both cars offer surprising rear-seat accommodations for even a pair of six-footers, the Acura scored slightly better, thanks to a higher roofline. But make no mistake, the Acura 3.2CL and the BMW 330Ci are legitimate four-place grand-tourers, not faux two-plus-twos with back seats suitable only for small children and Toulouse-Lautrec's relatives.
Compared with the BMW's typically fussy and complex instrument controls, the Acura's are logical and user-friendly. The large windshield and the rather tall cabin offer excellent visibility and sightlines.
If there are shortcomings in the CL's package, they fall into two categories, one based on empirical evidence, the other purely subjective. The latter deals with the styling, which seems tall compared with the BMW (although the car is actually 0.6 inch lower than the Bimmer) and borderline banal as a shape sheathing such an excellent package.
The test track revealed numbers that can only be related to a simple lack of rubber. The Acura's 215/50VR-17 Michelin Pilots are substantially skinnier than the Bimmer's Continentals (225/ 45ZR-17 in front and 245/40ZR-17 rear). Although the Acura's skidpad performance was minimally better (0.86 versus 0.85), the CL was way off the mark in the emergency-lane-change maneuver (60.5 mph versus 63.9 mph) and worse by 11 feet (178 feet versus 167 feet) in the 70-to-0-mph braking test. Although the acceleration numbers were essentially identical, a slight advantage in the BMW's content count doomed the Acura CL to being runner-up by a lousy single point, its massive advantages in the price department notwithstanding. A cop-out? Another rollover in the face of the BMW image juggernaut? Read on before you decide.
First Place
BMW 330Ci
This is getting as tiresome for us as it is for you—another notch in BMW's gun following one of our comparison tests. But what do we do? We drive 'em. We test 'em. We report. We (not you) decide. We puzzle over how these Bavarians keep machines in their 3- and 5-series stables on top of the heap, at least in the realm of enthusiast drivers like us. To be sure, the Acura 3.2CL Type-S is one superb automobile, but it was facing off against a BMW packed to the doorsills with not only great engineering but also enough charisma to crash a Hollywood Oscar party. A tough combination to beat, especially when it bolsters its image with raw, sideways-by-the-silo driving fun.
The Verdict
Highs: A beautifully integrated amalgam of high-performance, comfort, and sinful pleasure.
Lows: Eye-watering sticker shock; fussy, button-pocked instrument panel.
The Verdict: What price glory? A bargain in this case.
Let's get past the negatives first. Why do German cars possess instrument panels with as many buttons, switches, and dials as an offshore oil rig? The Acura's panel, on the other hand, is clean, simple, and logical.
Although the Bimmer hooks up with crablike resolve in the corners, it produces considerably more body roll than the Acura. This might have gone unnoticed had we not switched back and forth repeatedly between the two machines. The BMW is a joy to drive, but even with its onboard yaw control (offered with traction control, both of which the Acura lacked), it creates the illusion of slight wobbliness in the corners despite the high velocities that can be maintained.
Beyond that, the 330Ci is an unmitigated hoot. We have prattled endlessly about the 3-series overall and the 330i in particular regarding their inherent driving pleasures, and it borders on pointless to repeat the accolades here. Leave it at this: The 330Ci remains the finest mid-size sporting two-door on the planet, despite a valiant effort by the Acura gang to displace it.
But still, the nagging issue of the extra seven grand must be dealt with. For openers, the BMW has a minuscule edge in performance (0.1 second to 60, 0.2 in the quarter, and the already noted advantage in braking and lane changing). Beyond that, the 330Ci comes standard with stability and traction controls, neither of which is available on the six-speed Acura.
Moreover, there was general agreement that the BMW seats are more comfortable. Our drivers felt more integrated into the overall machine than we did in the Acura. "I feel much more tucked into the BMW cockpit, as opposed to feeling slightly perched on the Acura seat," noted one staffer. Another said, "The seats have a comfort edge on the Acura's, with longer, adjustable bottom cushions, more padding, better bolsters."
A scribble in the BMW test logbook about summed it up: "There is a boyish enthusiasm about this thing that is eternally endearing. Price-wise, it's hard to justify another seven grand, but damn, it's a complete machine. It's hard not to love. The slickness of the controls and the handling, coupled with the faintly guttural exhaust note at speed, only adds to the appeal. But the question nags, is it worth the extra thousands?"
After 700 miles of hard driving, we say yes. Not an unqualified yes, because the Acura is a worthy challenger and because the issue of value is (1) subjective and (2) dependent on the vagaries of the used-car market. BMWs and Acuras both tend to hold up reasonably well in the resale wars. Based on one leasing program we consulted, the two vehicles, after three years, are expected to retain a residual value of 59 percent of the original price for the BMW and 51 percent for the Acura. These numbers vary, of course, based on geographical location, option levels, wear and tear, mileage, and other criteria and only offer a general gauge of value.
So we declare another victory, albeit a razor-thin one, for BMW. You may recall that we similarly honored its four-door brother in our February "36 on the Floor" comparo. But the gap steadily narrows, and it may be only a matter of time before the king is dethroned. When and if that happens, you'll be the first to know.
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
My comments posted on June 9th 2002 about the comparo:
--------------------------
OK here are points that caught my attention:
1. It is obvious that the CL puts more power to the ground. You can tell that from the higher trap speed for the 1/4 mile run although! our car is 125 pounds heavier. 98mph vs. 97 mph. So at equal weights, our car would be faster maybe by 3-4 mph.
2. Top speed for the CL is WOW! high. I was surprised at that.
3. Braking. Wow we suck so bad, it is not funny. You have to have brakes to call your car a sports car. Sorry.
4. It looks like we beat the 330Ci in the skidpad. How did that happen with those tires? Imagine if the CL wore SO3s.
5. What is up with the Interior Sound levels?!? We are louder idle and par with the 330Ci in every other test. I dont count the full throttle because I was expecting our CL to be louder. No V6 sounds like ours when VTEC kicks into the tall cam lobes.
6. How come the Ci is so much more fuel efficient with those large tires? Hmmm...
7. I did not know that our CL had a smaller Wheel Base!!! I mean look at the length of these 2 cars. Also, the width is exactly par. Wow.
8. What is up with the rear interior volume/space being just 1 cubic foot larger for the CL? I thought we were way larger in the back. Wow. Still learning about my car.
9. How come our car lost in the "Driver comfort" department, when we won in "Ergonomics" as well as having 3 cubic feet more room in the front interior space department. How are C&D folks thinking about this?
10. We won in the engine deparment yet JD Powers gives all the gold medals to BMW and we dont even manage to even qualify. Wow. More evidence of how subjective this shit is. These guys write stuff, just to write stuff. Nuts...
11. Handling is tied! WOW! I thought I'd never live to see that. Par with the coupe from BMW! Wow!
12. How come we lost the "Features and Amenities"? How is the 330Ci have more features and amenities?
13. How is the value won by ONLY one point!!!!???? We are so much cheaper. I mean give me a freaking break C&D.
--------------------------
OK here are points that caught my attention:
1. It is obvious that the CL puts more power to the ground. You can tell that from the higher trap speed for the 1/4 mile run although! our car is 125 pounds heavier. 98mph vs. 97 mph. So at equal weights, our car would be faster maybe by 3-4 mph.
2. Top speed for the CL is WOW! high. I was surprised at that.
3. Braking. Wow we suck so bad, it is not funny. You have to have brakes to call your car a sports car. Sorry.
4. It looks like we beat the 330Ci in the skidpad. How did that happen with those tires? Imagine if the CL wore SO3s.
5. What is up with the Interior Sound levels?!? We are louder idle and par with the 330Ci in every other test. I dont count the full throttle because I was expecting our CL to be louder. No V6 sounds like ours when VTEC kicks into the tall cam lobes.
6. How come the Ci is so much more fuel efficient with those large tires? Hmmm...
7. I did not know that our CL had a smaller Wheel Base!!! I mean look at the length of these 2 cars. Also, the width is exactly par. Wow.
8. What is up with the rear interior volume/space being just 1 cubic foot larger for the CL? I thought we were way larger in the back. Wow. Still learning about my car.
9. How come our car lost in the "Driver comfort" department, when we won in "Ergonomics" as well as having 3 cubic feet more room in the front interior space department. How are C&D folks thinking about this?
10. We won in the engine deparment yet JD Powers gives all the gold medals to BMW and we dont even manage to even qualify. Wow. More evidence of how subjective this shit is. These guys write stuff, just to write stuff. Nuts...
11. Handling is tied! WOW! I thought I'd never live to see that. Par with the coupe from BMW! Wow!
12. How come we lost the "Features and Amenities"? How is the 330Ci have more features and amenities?
13. How is the value won by ONLY one point!!!!???? We are so much cheaper. I mean give me a freaking break C&D.
TQ > MPG
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,624
Likes: 8
From: Metro Detroit
I remember that article very clearly now. It's funny because I remember thinking wtf would buy a CL-S over the Bimmer. :o
I think it's impressive that the CL-S did so well against the BMW, especially since it undercuts it by alot.
Also, value is not just a low sticker price, but content : $, so maybe the BMW had some cooler features that the CL didn't. Traction control, stability control, etc maybe?
The BMW kills the CL-S in weight distribution though :o
I think it's impressive that the CL-S did so well against the BMW, especially since it undercuts it by alot.
Also, value is not just a low sticker price, but content : $, so maybe the BMW had some cooler features that the CL didn't. Traction control, stability control, etc maybe?
The BMW kills the CL-S in weight distribution though :o
Thread Starter
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
Originally posted by bkknight369
P.S. The price is fucking bullshit...as always. Fully decked out 330ci (equivalent to cl with navi) would cost more.
P.S. The price is fucking bullshit...as always. Fully decked out 330ci (equivalent to cl with navi) would cost more.
Trending Topics
RIP Red-CL
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
THIS IS ALWAYS BS! IT PISSES ME OFF, EVERY TIME I C IT THE 0-60 AND QUARTER MILE DROPS ON THE 330. I HAVE BEATEN A 330CI 5-SPEED WITH MY BONE STOCK CL-S AUTO, WITH A GOOD DRIVER IN THE 330! FIRST TIME I SAW THE 1/4 ON THE 330 WAS IN MOTOR TREND AND WAS LISTED AT 15+, AND ALSO SOME GUY DID A 14.2 WITHA BONE STOCK CL-S 6.
Lead Footed
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 3,415
Likes: 15
From: Plano - Texas
Originally posted by thealliance15
THIS IS ALWAYS BS! IT PISSES ME OFF, EVERY TIME I C IT THE 0-60 AND QUARTER MILE DROPS ON THE 330. I HAVE BEATEN A 330CI 5-SPEED WITH MY BONE STOCK CL-S AUTO, WITH A GOOD DRIVER IN THE 330! FIRST TIME I SAW THE 1/4 ON THE 330 WAS IN MOTOR TREND AND WAS LISTED AT 15+, AND ALSO SOME GUY DID A 14.2 WITHA BONE STOCK CL-S 6.
THIS IS ALWAYS BS! IT PISSES ME OFF, EVERY TIME I C IT THE 0-60 AND QUARTER MILE DROPS ON THE 330. I HAVE BEATEN A 330CI 5-SPEED WITH MY BONE STOCK CL-S AUTO, WITH A GOOD DRIVER IN THE 330! FIRST TIME I SAW THE 1/4 ON THE 330 WAS IN MOTOR TREND AND WAS LISTED AT 15+, AND ALSO SOME GUY DID A 14.2 WITHA BONE STOCK CL-S 6.
And I've beat 1 330i 5S and a couple of autos. So what gives? Who knows.
Also, wasn't that a 14.6 posted for the CLS? I mean if these guys are such hot shot drivers you'd think they could beat the average time that guys on this board are posting . . . low 14s.
So I suspect the deck was stacked against the CLS to start with.
Ruf
What, me drive fast?
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,943
Likes: 0
From: North Andover, MA
Wow...old stuff. But I agree, the press for the CLS was pretty nice when it came out (6sp or auto) and it pretty much fell on it's face thanks to Acura not having a friggin marketing bone in their body. 
Daily Driver
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, CA
I remember that one - it's one of the first that made me look seriouisly at the CLS. Especially since by the time I bought in 12/02, the CLS was selling at or below invoice, widening the price gap even more.
BTW, I thought the auto CLS was 62/38 and the CLS6 was 60/40 for weight ratios. I guess we're only 61.3/38.7
BTW, I thought the auto CLS was 62/38 and the CLS6 was 60/40 for weight ratios. I guess we're only 61.3/38.7
Suzuka Master
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,516
Likes: 1
From: Lakeway, TX
Originally posted by RUF87
There are all sorts of variable that could be at play here. Maybe BMW snuck in a DINAN chip without anyone noticing . . especially if they knew they were going up against the CLS 6S. . . . never know.
And I've beat 1 330i 5S and a couple of autos. So what gives? Who knows.
Also, wasn't that a 14.6 posted for the CLS? I mean if these guys are such hot shot drivers you'd think they could beat the average time that guys on this board are posting . . . low 14s.
So I suspect the deck was stacked against the CLS to start with.
Ruf
There are all sorts of variable that could be at play here. Maybe BMW snuck in a DINAN chip without anyone noticing . . especially if they knew they were going up against the CLS 6S. . . . never know.
And I've beat 1 330i 5S and a couple of autos. So what gives? Who knows.
Also, wasn't that a 14.6 posted for the CLS? I mean if these guys are such hot shot drivers you'd think they could beat the average time that guys on this board are posting . . . low 14s.
So I suspect the deck was stacked against the CLS to start with.
Ruf
Full-Time IDIoT---DoH!!!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,654
Likes: 16
From: DUMB ISLAND
i've noticed C&D doesnt get good numbers w/hi-powered fwd cars...this was very evident in their sport compact tuner shootout...som of the cars were trapping 110mph+ but yet they could only manage a 14s 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
saberlove
2G TL Performance Parts & Modifications
12
Mar 11, 2021 09:29 AM
