17th Feb 2006, 21:53
I do doubt the 155 mph claim, but the first M3's came with a 192 HP four cylinder, which means that it would be possible to beat one. Although beating a 3000 lb. 4-cylinder that is 15 years old does not constitute bragging rights.
18th Sep 2006, 22:44
I drive an Acura CL type S, 6 speed manual… and yes the 155MPH claim is tough to imagine as the car is governered at 145 MPH. Maybe he meant Kph? The 0-60 time on the 6MT can be under 6 seconds… but this is a function of driver skill as this is not the 2 pedal go cart automatic. There is no comparison between an automatic TL and a manual CLS… I know because my wife has a TL and it is a nice family car. The difference in transmission efficiency can be up to 20% in power transfer to the wheels. Having said that I have also gone up against an M3… and my CL is hardly stock and I still lost. The M3 is slightly faster than the CL, but it is also twice the price. The CL is a great car and will beat pretty much anything in its class… including a mustang GT.
3rd Oct 2006, 13:28
I just purchased a 2003 CL 6-Speed w/64000 miles. Body is beautiful. There are no records in the Maintenance log that came with the car. Sorry for sounding so "dumb" (female) but I've never bought a used car before, couldn't resist this one even with the high mileage. Any problems I should look out for? I read about a recall? Help?
19th Oct 2006, 13:06
I just purchased mine ('03 Type-S 6MT) & boy does that thing move. I smoked my buddy's G35 coupe about 1 1/2 car lengths. his vehicle was manual. Type-S; definitely not a force to reckon with!
17th Aug 2007, 20:15
The acura cl-s is not governed it tops out around 150... and not at 145... either you can't drive it or you got scared.
19th Dec 2008, 01:30
Mustang GTs you beat must be very old. And tired. With drivers that suffer from glaucoma. And very bad reflexes.
Newer mustang GTs beat Acura.
15th Apr 2009, 08:12
It is governed. I have one. This thing pulls hard right up to the limit and then gets a throttle cut-off.
10th May 2009, 04:46
Hey peeps... I got one.. haha I lucked out and found the CL I wanted. It's a charcoal gray color, leather interior, navigation, Type S, 6 speed manual, helical LSD, dual pipes, quick as hell MONSTER.. LOL.
This car drives me nuts. I just smoked my boys 2005 GT Mustang also stick.. haha.man I got him by a fender, but it was a tough run.. didn't think I was gonna win.. but I did. And believe me he knows how to drive that roaring V8.. but couldn't hang with the MONSTER.. Mad props for anyone who owns a six speed.. peace.
28th Jun 2009, 19:26
To comment on the 155 claim. It is true I have a Sundance gold Type-S auto-tronic tonicironictropicits stock except a cold air intake and not governed. I was pinned for quite some time and nearly buried the 160 mark. 158 to be exact. I have after market wheels but they are exact stock outside diameter. I also never got beat on the road, but there is always someone faster.
24th Jul 2009, 23:19
I have owned my 2003 3.2 CL Type-S for 3 months so far. It is my 5th CL, but my first Type-S... it is fast as hell. I have been in a few races since I purchased it... mostly all no competition.. I have insanely raped almost anything that tried me, even some AMG Benz's (previous generations of course)... just raced a 350Z 2 days ago and only barely lost... only thing that has smoked me so far is a Cobra.
My car is an automatic as well =D.
9th Jan 2010, 16:39
Ha, OK, I might be in the wrong forum, but this goes to whoever talked about racing their manual CL-S against an M3.
For the record I drive a 03 TL-Type S.
Now I know this may sound weird, but for a matter of fact, a 2004 M3 has 320 BHP. If you got the top of the line and got the M3 CSL, it turns out 355 from a 3.2.
Now the difference in performance from the TL and CL is only a little. In acceleration the TL is actually 0.2 seconds quicker than a CL, and this is with the sport shift technology; the TL gets there in 6.0 seconds.
The bottom ranked M3 does it in 5.1, so unless the driver of the M3 absolutely messed his start, there is no way. That's why our cars cost 30K and his 60K+
Think about it.
2nd Jan 2011, 05:10
Well I don't know if there is a difference between the transmissions, but I have had the automatic for 5 years, and it tops out at exactly 145 mph. Had it since 19,000 miles, and the trans just went for the first time at 111,096. 2003 by the way, outside of the vin numbers too, had to pay 2100 to rebuild the clutch, which was scorched for a tranny leak, great car, tranny was the only problem, but I'm trying to sell for something else, but the dealers are aware of the problem, and only offered me 4 grand; I paid 18 grand for it.
31st Jan 2011, 01:01
I recently purchased a 2001 CL Type S with 59,000 miles, it drives like a dream and I've yet to experience any issues.
I also own a 2002 TL Type S, which is one of the reasons I bought the CL. I am well aware of the tranny problems these cars have, but my TL just turned 233,000 miles and that's the only problem I've ever had.
I called Acura to see if they would take care of the problem if something happened with the CL tranny up to 103,000 miles and they said no because it's out of the 93 months, so even though they know there's a problem with the tranny, Acura will not honor a repair.
3rd Jun 2013, 23:22
I bought a 2003 3.2 CL Type T. I have the Manu-matic sport shifter with traction control. I highly disagree with the 6 second 0-60 time. I timed multiple different runs from a dead stop in sport shift mode, and came out with an average of low 4's.. that's all out. Best run being a little under 4, but it was consistent. I haven't gone through the engine entirely to check for other than factory mods.
8th Nov 2005, 12:46
Two things. First, I find it hard to believe that there exists anywhere in the U.S. a road crowded enough to have a stoplight, yet open enough to get a car to 155 mph just afterwards. Second, an '04 BMW M3 gets to 60 in 5.1 seconds (Consumer Reports) with a 6-speed and a 3.2 litre engine. Your 3.2CL is fast, indeed faster than my own car, but consider this: a 2004 Acura 3.2TL (I know, but it's the same engine and tranny choice) gets to 60 in 6.7 with the 5-speed auto. Now, Acura makes a very good automatic, yet we are expected here to believe that your 6-speed achieved a time which must be at least 1.6 seconds better than the auto? Honestly. Your car is fast enough to easily beat most sedans; its only real competition in its category comes from Infiniti. But an M3?
Here's another funny story: my 1977 Civic with the Hondamatic 2-speed auto smoked a Porsche Carrera the other day. Yep, there he was in the parking lot, and I drove right past him! There was nothing he could do, but watch my taillights disappear as I parked on the other side of a Suburban! It's no excuse that the driver wasn't in the car. Then I posted my victory story on this website.