.<br>

Did you read the February edition of Road and Track? They had a Comparison test that included your beloved 3.2 TL, A42.8Q, E46, Etc.. The A4 lapped the 1.06 mile ,9 turn circuit 2.8 seconds faster than the TL. That my friend is a serious ass Kicking. That means that when the A4 completed its lap, the TL will be about 30 car lengths behind. All of that happened in 1:00.86 minutes (A4's lap time). I'll admit, The TL will out run the A4 on a very long straight away, but not by much. If all of the roads in the world were all straight then the TL would be a better performer. Guess what Hans? They’re not. <p><p><br>

I have had two and they were nice but they were boring, boring, and boring. hans believes has has made a good choice but in about a year he will be bored and he will wished he had purchased a German motor car. Well, that is how I felt and I am back to my senses.

Hans you have quite the mighty written word. However action speaks louder than words. I'd welcome you on the track with me in my slow A4QM. I'm curious as to the real performance level of the 3.2TL and also your awesome driving abilities.<br>I go to several events per year. Lots of different types of cars there. I think it would be fun to really see if your theories hold any water. (That A4s are slow and/or the drivers are)<br>-Cathleen

Ah jeese.......<p>Some Acuras "are" for oldies.... just like every manufacture (just about) makes a cruiser for the retirement crowd. <p>BUT don't hanker down that street of grand statements with a broken glass that holds no water. My 5-spd Acura Vigor GS (with mods) is no slouch at all and I love the car. There is no boredom in my Vigor and it flies, handles well and provides me with ear to ear grins all the time..... your experiences may reflect the kinda wankie driver that you are....... if nothing else..... or maybe you ran your Acura's into the ground.... who knows. Just don't drop the hammer on the whole Acura line cause of your quirkie experiences...... irregardless of the company you keep here at A4 land.<p>BTW..... I just get a little defense about grand statements that trash things based on limited experiences. Everything this side of a 1999 M5 has it's faults. Ever looked in the back seat of an A4?? Hmmm.......... <p>Nuff said....

Do you have tip or manual. The CLK320 is auto. but makes 25 hp more than the A4, and something like 20ft-lb. more of torque. It also has a very similar weight to the A4, but with the added hp, torque it is still about .3 sec. faster than the 30V manual to 60. The acceleration from any given speed could vary depending on gearing. For instance lets say that you both begin accelerating at 60mph. Assuming that you have a manual A4, your going to have to start in 3rd gear, which is at the lowest end (rpm wise) for that given speed. Now that's assume on the CLK at that given speed that it's able to kick to 2nd gear and with it's gearing makes it near it's peak torque. (i'm unfamiliar with the CLK gearing, so this is all theory) At that given speed the CLK will outaccelerate the A4, but the A4 will outaccelerate at other given speeds. Starting from 0, then the CLK will still outrun the A4, but it should not DEVOUR it.