Acura: TLX News
10-08-2014, 03:51 PM
Team Owner
i saw him 2 days ago... did not mentioned it here because i don't want another thread get locked because of us.
They can have fun sitting there in a circle and praise the lord themselves.
They can have fun sitting there in a circle and praise the lord themselves.
10-08-2014, 04:02 PM
Team Owner
damn i respect this guy for his consistency.
do you realize it has 225/55 very large x-section crappy tires?. the TSX was tested with lighter 6MT 225/50. and at 120mph TLX is ahead of TSX.
Accord sport has wider 235/45 tire setup.
it still beat the 320i at higher speed with superior fuel economic. turbo is not solution.
Accord sport has wider 235/45 tire setup.
it still beat the 320i at higher speed with superior fuel economic. turbo is not solution.
10-08-2014, 04:09 PM
Moderator
10-08-2014, 04:31 PM
Team Owner
I saw you replied.
I am not even gonna bother with that thread this time.
The stuff they are arguing over is as boring as TLX itself. my car does quarter mile is 15 secs at 95 miles per hour! it seems those people are really shameless...
I am not even gonna bother with that thread this time.
The stuff they are arguing over is as boring as TLX itself. my car does quarter mile is 15 secs at 95 miles per hour! it seems those people are really shameless...
10-08-2014, 04:40 PM
Moderator
It's strange, I used to bristle every time I saw SSFTSX post in a thread because I just knew it was going to be some inane, stream-of-consciousness, nonsense. Now, I laugh every time I see SSFTSX post in a thread because I just know it's going to be some inane, stream-of-consciousness, nonsense.
10-08-2014, 05:17 PM
Team Owner
i honestly suspect that he is doing that on purpose. Maybe that is his sense of humor.
10-08-2014, 06:03 PM
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Yah pretty much 6th all the way unless i have to brake for whatever reasons. The car is around 3k RPM @ 80mph in 6th. It's got so much torque at low RPM that i rarely have to down shift to accelerate up hill.
and based on my butt dyno, the car does not feel faster even i down shift to 5th.
and based on my butt dyno, the car does not feel faster even i down shift to 5th.
My honest review of this thing:
I went and drove this car so I thought I'd provide some feedback...
If I could describe this car with one word, it would be "yawn". It's another mediocre offering from Acura that's really quite good at what it does but isn't really great at anything. I've never been so underwhelmed by a really good car. In essence, it's a hopped up Accord with a higher price tag. I'll break it down from here and use the Accord as a benchmark.
Engine/Transmission
V6 Engine: On one hand, it's really not worth buying a TLX V6 when you can get the Accord V6 with a very similar motor for about $10k less (12hp advantage to the TLX), features are a wash. The 12hp isn't all that noticeable. The biggest advantage to the TLX comes in the transmission. The 9 speed in the TLX is a gem and is the same as the one used in numerous other cars on the market today. Aside from this, the Accord is cheaper and similar too similar to warrant the extra cost. It wouldn't surprise me if Honda puts the 9AT into the Accord V6 sometime in the near future.
4 Cylinder Engine: On the other hand, the DCT in the 4 cylinder TLX is really good. The torque converter really takes out the harshness of a traditional DCT and locks up pretty quick after take off to provide all the benefits. It's a lot better than the 4 cylinder Accord's CVT and that makes the cost jump worth it (for me), but again you are paying ~$10k more for a nicer transmission. Additionally, the extra 20hp from the TLX 4 cylinder is definitely noticeable at highway speeds but the torque output being the same makes city driving a wash. Also, the Accord is actually faster to 60 than the 4cyl TLX, who knew.
Overall Engine: As usual for Honda, both engines are great. They are smooth, punchy at the low end, and you need to wind them both up to get the most power out of them. And I'm sure they will be just as reliable as the next sunrise in the long run. As I said, the transmissions is where the TLX shines over the Accord but there are many other cars on the market that offer a similar driving experience.
Handling/Ride
I sampled both the FWD as well as the SHAWD versions and the AWD one is the one to get. The grip is fantastic and the way the SHAWD system shuffles power to help the car turn faster is eerie in it's behavior. You expect it to understeer and it feels like it's understeering but it still goes around the bend neutrally. It's hard to describe with words but the system works as advertised and does a damn good job of killing the understeer. It was August when I drove it so there was no snow to test out that aspect of it.
The FWD one performs exactly as you'd expect it to. That said it is still fine for those who don't live in the tundra and use this just for a daily driver. You have to push it to get it to understeer and I don't see many owners even approaching that limit. Enthusiasts won't even consider this one so it doesn't really matter anyway.
Ride is great, I'd don't think I'd have an issue driving this for a few hours. Seats are comfy, plenty of room and the cabin isn't a dark box.
Styling
Headlights are cool, rest of it is blah. It's so boring and uninspiring to look at...even the concept was boring looking. Also, the exhaust is hidden which is apparently a thing for a sport sedan.
Interior
As I said, the seats are comfy, plenty of room, bright cabin with good visibility all around. Materials are quite good, definitely par for the course in a $40k car. They are better than the 4G TL but not as good as the 3G TL. I have no gripes with the interior at all, it's a good place to spend some time.
Technology
Oh where do I start... So there's a non-touch screen in the dash that shows nav and a few other things...that's it. And then there's ANOTHER screen in the dash to control some of the HVAC (not all) and all of the stereo. You'd think that this lower screen would also control the nav system but nope, there's another set of buttons below the touch screen to control the rest of HVAC and the nav. I'm not really sure why this is necessary and even less sure why car companies went away from having one touch screen do all the work. My 3G TL has one touch screen that covers all the functions and buttons for backup in many cases. It's so much easier to see something you want and touch it than to sort through menu after menu to find what you want.
In any case, this was quite possibly the most annoying part of this car. It's needlessly complicated and hard to use. I had a hard time figuring everything out while sitting in a parking lot let alone while driving.
Other than that, everything else was actually pretty great value for a car of this price and class. The tech package (don't know why you wouldn't get this...) comes standard with Nav, hard drive, keyless entry and ignition, push button start, bluetooth, voice command (that actually works), etc. On top of that you also get heated and cooled seats, XM radio, real leather, upgraded sound system, sunroof, etc. all for ~$40k. That's very hard/impossible value to beat from the Germans.
Conclusion
Overall, the TLX is a good car but not a great car. They'll sell tons of them and everyone who buys one will like it but the select few enthusiasts who buy it likely won't love it. It checks all of the boxes to make a great daily driver except for excitement. There just isn't any. And the infotainment system is infuriating. I'm sure that I'd eventually get used to it but it's just not like the old one where you could just sit down and use it.
In the end, it's fine but I'd pass on buying this one. Having a "sport sedan" with a 290hp V6 is just blah and insulting to those of us who want to actually have some fun with this. Because of that, I'll say this. Until they drop in a TT V6 with 350hp+, add in the excellent DCT/6 speed manual, firmed up suspension, some more aggressive styling, visible exhaust outlets, and a Type S badge on the back, I won't even consider stopping at an Acura dealership again. Acura has been dropping the ball on new models ever since the 3G TL went out of production and until they fix this, their sales issues won't go away. Especially not with the new IS/GS being available for very similar prices.
Cliffs:
- Boring
- Uninspiring
- Still a very good car
- Not a great car
- Infuriating infotainment
- Buy a Lexus IS/GS if you want a Japanese luxury sport sedan.
I went and drove this car so I thought I'd provide some feedback...
If I could describe this car with one word, it would be "yawn". It's another mediocre offering from Acura that's really quite good at what it does but isn't really great at anything. I've never been so underwhelmed by a really good car. In essence, it's a hopped up Accord with a higher price tag. I'll break it down from here and use the Accord as a benchmark.
Engine/Transmission
V6 Engine: On one hand, it's really not worth buying a TLX V6 when you can get the Accord V6 with a very similar motor for about $10k less (12hp advantage to the TLX), features are a wash. The 12hp isn't all that noticeable. The biggest advantage to the TLX comes in the transmission. The 9 speed in the TLX is a gem and is the same as the one used in numerous other cars on the market today. Aside from this, the Accord is cheaper and similar too similar to warrant the extra cost. It wouldn't surprise me if Honda puts the 9AT into the Accord V6 sometime in the near future.
4 Cylinder Engine: On the other hand, the DCT in the 4 cylinder TLX is really good. The torque converter really takes out the harshness of a traditional DCT and locks up pretty quick after take off to provide all the benefits. It's a lot better than the 4 cylinder Accord's CVT and that makes the cost jump worth it (for me), but again you are paying ~$10k more for a nicer transmission. Additionally, the extra 20hp from the TLX 4 cylinder is definitely noticeable at highway speeds but the torque output being the same makes city driving a wash. Also, the Accord is actually faster to 60 than the 4cyl TLX, who knew.
Overall Engine: As usual for Honda, both engines are great. They are smooth, punchy at the low end, and you need to wind them both up to get the most power out of them. And I'm sure they will be just as reliable as the next sunrise in the long run. As I said, the transmissions is where the TLX shines over the Accord but there are many other cars on the market that offer a similar driving experience.
Handling/Ride
I sampled both the FWD as well as the SHAWD versions and the AWD one is the one to get. The grip is fantastic and the way the SHAWD system shuffles power to help the car turn faster is eerie in it's behavior. You expect it to understeer and it feels like it's understeering but it still goes around the bend neutrally. It's hard to describe with words but the system works as advertised and does a damn good job of killing the understeer. It was August when I drove it so there was no snow to test out that aspect of it.
The FWD one performs exactly as you'd expect it to. That said it is still fine for those who don't live in the tundra and use this just for a daily driver. You have to push it to get it to understeer and I don't see many owners even approaching that limit. Enthusiasts won't even consider this one so it doesn't really matter anyway.
Ride is great, I'd don't think I'd have an issue driving this for a few hours. Seats are comfy, plenty of room and the cabin isn't a dark box.
Styling
Headlights are cool, rest of it is blah. It's so boring and uninspiring to look at...even the concept was boring looking. Also, the exhaust is hidden which is apparently a thing for a sport sedan.
Interior
As I said, the seats are comfy, plenty of room, bright cabin with good visibility all around. Materials are quite good, definitely par for the course in a $40k car. They are better than the 4G TL but not as good as the 3G TL. I have no gripes with the interior at all, it's a good place to spend some time.
Technology
Oh where do I start... So there's a non-touch screen in the dash that shows nav and a few other things...that's it. And then there's ANOTHER screen in the dash to control some of the HVAC (not all) and all of the stereo. You'd think that this lower screen would also control the nav system but nope, there's another set of buttons below the touch screen to control the rest of HVAC and the nav. I'm not really sure why this is necessary and even less sure why car companies went away from having one touch screen do all the work. My 3G TL has one touch screen that covers all the functions and buttons for backup in many cases. It's so much easier to see something you want and touch it than to sort through menu after menu to find what you want.
In any case, this was quite possibly the most annoying part of this car. It's needlessly complicated and hard to use. I had a hard time figuring everything out while sitting in a parking lot let alone while driving.
Other than that, everything else was actually pretty great value for a car of this price and class. The tech package (don't know why you wouldn't get this...) comes standard with Nav, hard drive, keyless entry and ignition, push button start, bluetooth, voice command (that actually works), etc. On top of that you also get heated and cooled seats, XM radio, real leather, upgraded sound system, sunroof, etc. all for ~$40k. That's very hard/impossible value to beat from the Germans.
Conclusion
Overall, the TLX is a good car but not a great car. They'll sell tons of them and everyone who buys one will like it but the select few enthusiasts who buy it likely won't love it. It checks all of the boxes to make a great daily driver except for excitement. There just isn't any. And the infotainment system is infuriating. I'm sure that I'd eventually get used to it but it's just not like the old one where you could just sit down and use it.
In the end, it's fine but I'd pass on buying this one. Having a "sport sedan" with a 290hp V6 is just blah and insulting to those of us who want to actually have some fun with this. Because of that, I'll say this. Until they drop in a TT V6 with 350hp+, add in the excellent DCT/6 speed manual, firmed up suspension, some more aggressive styling, visible exhaust outlets, and a Type S badge on the back, I won't even consider stopping at an Acura dealership again. Acura has been dropping the ball on new models ever since the 3G TL went out of production and until they fix this, their sales issues won't go away. Especially not with the new IS/GS being available for very similar prices.
Cliffs:
- Boring
- Uninspiring
- Still a very good car
- Not a great car
- Infuriating infotainment
- Buy a Lexus IS/GS if you want a Japanese luxury sport sedan.
You said this is a "mediocre offering" while saying this car is "really quite good."
The TLX I4 is actually noticeably quicker than the Accord CVT. It's the Accord 6MT that's marginally faster than the TLX. To be fair, 0-60mph in high 6's isn't anything to brag about, but that sort of performance competes well against IS250, ATS 2.5, and 320i.
You mentioned that the TLX V6 FWD is not worth buying when an Accord (Touring presumably) is $10k less because the Accord is just as fast and feature is a wash. Well, the TLX V6 Advance is actually less than $9k more than the Accord Touring. And I agree that the performance is a wash. But features? The contradicting part is that later in your post, you went on and praised the TLX for its features, and that its feature list is more than enough to go against the German competition. So I'm a bit confused here.
For the interior, again, you mentioned that the TLX interior is worthy of its price tag of $40k, are you suggesting that the Accord is at that level as well?
For your conclusion, I very much agree that some sort of Type S trim is ideal. However, you went on and talked about how the 3.5L V6 is an insult, and suggest the IS and GS are better especially when they are at similar prices. First, the GS doesn't really compete in this class, and its starting price is already higher than the top of the line TLX AWD Advance, so I'll skip it.
The IS starts at $36k for the IS250 without LED headlights and back up camera, both of which are standard on the $31k TLX. Adding the navi package on the IS250 brings the price to $42k, which is $7k over the TLX Tech I4. A similar trend can be found for the IS350 and its packages.
The IS250 is a much slower car than the TLX 2.4. There's really no contest.
The IS350 is about as fast as an Accord V6. There's no test result of the TLX 3.5, but I guess it's safe to assume that car is about as fast as the Accord V6 and IS350.
Anyway, my point is, the IS350 will most likely not be much faster than the TLX V6, and it's more expensive than the TLX.
10-08-2014, 07:18 PM
I'm the Firestarter
2015 Acura TLX 2.4L Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
Instrumented test of TLX 2.4 is out from Car and Driver:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 134 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 179 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.83 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 24/35 mpg
C/D observed: 27 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited
The numbers look highly competitive against IS250, ATS 2.5, and 320i.
The review itself isn't very glowing however. In fact, it's quite a large contrast compared to the original first drive review. Obviously the two articles were written by two different journalists, and I guess we can see the different sides of things regarding this car. One thing I don't quite agree with this latest review is the interior. Based on my experience, I thought the TLX interior is highly competitive with the 3 series.
Instrumented test of TLX 2.4 is out from Car and Driver:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 134 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 179 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.83 g
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 24/35 mpg
C/D observed: 27 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited
The numbers look highly competitive against IS250, ATS 2.5, and 320i.
The review itself isn't very glowing however. In fact, it's quite a large contrast compared to the original first drive review. Obviously the two articles were written by two different journalists, and I guess we can see the different sides of things regarding this car. One thing I don't quite agree with this latest review is the interior. Based on my experience, I thought the TLX interior is highly competitive with the 3 series.
10-08-2014, 09:00 PM
Team Owner
2.4 has no AWD.
10-09-2014, 12:08 AM
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
OMG IT BEAT OUT SONATA TURBO?
HOLY WOW
Advance.
HOLY WOW
Advance.
The following 7 users liked this post by JS + XES:
Belzebutt (10-09-2014),
CarbonGray Earl (10-22-2014),
crazyasiantl (10-22-2014),
justnspace (10-21-2014),
jwong77 (10-10-2014),
and 2 others liked this post.
10-09-2014, 11:10 AM
Ex-OEM King
I thought your review is very thorough and I agree with most of it. However, I believe there are a few points that are a bit off or contradictory.
You said this is a "mediocre offering" while saying this car is "really quite good."
What I meant is that while it's a good car, there's nothing great about it. There's nothing that would make me want to buy it over a competitor. However, there's nothing that would make me want to specifically NOT buy it.
The TLX I4 is actually noticeably quicker than the Accord CVT. It's the Accord 6MT that's marginally faster than the TLX. To be fair, 0-60mph in high 6's isn't anything to brag about, but that sort of performance competes well against IS250, ATS 2.5, and 320i.
Fair, but selling a car as "It's that kind of thrill" and not being faster than the basic of the basic competitors is silly. Additionally, all of those cars are RWD or AWD and as such have better driving dynamics than a FWD car.
You mentioned that the TLX V6 FWD is not worth buying when an Accord (Touring presumably) is $10k less because the Accord is just as fast and feature is a wash. Well, the TLX V6 Advance is actually less than $9k more than the Accord Touring. And I agree that the performance is a wash. But features? The contradicting part is that later in your post, you went on and praised the TLX for its features, and that its feature list is more than enough to go against the German competition. So I'm a bit confused here.
Rounding rules, the exact difference is $9140 if you want a number. Again, praising for features is right on. There are a lot of good features on the car (in Advance form) that are not standard or not even available on the German competitors. However, those features are largely available on the Accord Touring for $9140 less than the TLX Advance V6. If performance is a wash then what's the point of spending that extra money? That's what I was getting at.
For the interior, again, you mentioned that the TLX interior is worthy of its price tag of $40k, are you suggesting that the Accord is at that level as well?
New Accord is quite nice. The TLX has a little bit better leather but that's about it. The rest of it is very equal. I was very very impressed by the Touring and its value for money. I'd say that the materials in the Touring are on par for a $40k car too.
For your conclusion, I very much agree that some sort of Type S trim is ideal. However, you went on and talked about how the 3.5L V6 is an insult, and suggest the IS and GS are better especially when they are at similar prices. First, the GS doesn't really compete in this class, and its starting price is already higher than the top of the line TLX AWD Advance, so I'll skip it.
IMO, the TLX doesn't have a class. It has no direct German competitor that it goes after. Unlike Lexus, Acura has been just throwing out models that don't compete with any specific European car.
The TLX in exterior dimensions is actually just as big as a Lexus GS but is targeted at the IS and 3 series? WTF?
To the next point, yes, the IS/GS are both inherently better sport sedans. The TLX just doesn't have the driving dynamics of a sport sedan. It's not thrilling and it's not exciting, it's a good highway cruiser and that's about it. You feel the limits quite clearly in the TLX and you don't really want to approach them because there's no confidence in the car. With the Lexus, you can walk right up to the line and have confidence in the car to do what you ask of it. The IS/GS both have a RWD architecture and much, much better driving dynamics because of it. The 3.5L engine from Lexus is more powerful and more torquey than the 3.5L in the TLX while the IS is lighter so saying that they are just as good performance wise isn't really valid. Also the IS350 is faster to 60 and has a better 1/4 mile time sooo....yeah.
The IS starts at $36k for the IS250 without LED headlights and back up camera, both of which are standard on the $31k TLX. Adding the navi package on the IS250 brings the price to $42k, which is $7k over the TLX Tech I4. A similar trend can be found for the IS350 and its packages.
That's fair, but the IS is WORTH it for that cost increase over the TLX in both driving and style. The difference comes down to ~$42k for the TLX advance and ~$49k for the IS350 F Sport.
The IS250 is a much slower car than the TLX 2.4. There's really no contest.
IS250 isn't worth it, the 2.5L engine is a dog. I wouldn't recommend that one to anyone.
The IS350 is about as fast as an Accord V6. There's no test result of the TLX 3.5, but I guess it's safe to assume that car is about as fast as the Accord V6 and IS350.
Even more reason to buy the Accord over the TLX. The TLX comes in at ~6.0s to 60 while the IS350 and Accord V6 come in at ~5.6s.
Anyway, my point is, the IS350 will most likely not be much faster than the TLX V6, and it's more expensive than the TLX.
It's not only about straight line speed (which , the dynamics of the car are just so much better and the infotainment doesn't require a PhD in computer science to understand. Even though it's more expensive, it's worth the extra money to buy it because it's a better car. There are a lot of instances where it's not worth it like the Accord vs TLX example but this isn't one of them.
You said this is a "mediocre offering" while saying this car is "really quite good."
What I meant is that while it's a good car, there's nothing great about it. There's nothing that would make me want to buy it over a competitor. However, there's nothing that would make me want to specifically NOT buy it.
The TLX I4 is actually noticeably quicker than the Accord CVT. It's the Accord 6MT that's marginally faster than the TLX. To be fair, 0-60mph in high 6's isn't anything to brag about, but that sort of performance competes well against IS250, ATS 2.5, and 320i.
Fair, but selling a car as "It's that kind of thrill" and not being faster than the basic of the basic competitors is silly. Additionally, all of those cars are RWD or AWD and as such have better driving dynamics than a FWD car.
You mentioned that the TLX V6 FWD is not worth buying when an Accord (Touring presumably) is $10k less because the Accord is just as fast and feature is a wash. Well, the TLX V6 Advance is actually less than $9k more than the Accord Touring. And I agree that the performance is a wash. But features? The contradicting part is that later in your post, you went on and praised the TLX for its features, and that its feature list is more than enough to go against the German competition. So I'm a bit confused here.
Rounding rules, the exact difference is $9140 if you want a number. Again, praising for features is right on. There are a lot of good features on the car (in Advance form) that are not standard or not even available on the German competitors. However, those features are largely available on the Accord Touring for $9140 less than the TLX Advance V6. If performance is a wash then what's the point of spending that extra money? That's what I was getting at.
For the interior, again, you mentioned that the TLX interior is worthy of its price tag of $40k, are you suggesting that the Accord is at that level as well?
New Accord is quite nice. The TLX has a little bit better leather but that's about it. The rest of it is very equal. I was very very impressed by the Touring and its value for money. I'd say that the materials in the Touring are on par for a $40k car too.
For your conclusion, I very much agree that some sort of Type S trim is ideal. However, you went on and talked about how the 3.5L V6 is an insult, and suggest the IS and GS are better especially when they are at similar prices. First, the GS doesn't really compete in this class, and its starting price is already higher than the top of the line TLX AWD Advance, so I'll skip it.
IMO, the TLX doesn't have a class. It has no direct German competitor that it goes after. Unlike Lexus, Acura has been just throwing out models that don't compete with any specific European car.
The TLX in exterior dimensions is actually just as big as a Lexus GS but is targeted at the IS and 3 series? WTF?
To the next point, yes, the IS/GS are both inherently better sport sedans. The TLX just doesn't have the driving dynamics of a sport sedan. It's not thrilling and it's not exciting, it's a good highway cruiser and that's about it. You feel the limits quite clearly in the TLX and you don't really want to approach them because there's no confidence in the car. With the Lexus, you can walk right up to the line and have confidence in the car to do what you ask of it. The IS/GS both have a RWD architecture and much, much better driving dynamics because of it. The 3.5L engine from Lexus is more powerful and more torquey than the 3.5L in the TLX while the IS is lighter so saying that they are just as good performance wise isn't really valid. Also the IS350 is faster to 60 and has a better 1/4 mile time sooo....yeah.
The IS starts at $36k for the IS250 without LED headlights and back up camera, both of which are standard on the $31k TLX. Adding the navi package on the IS250 brings the price to $42k, which is $7k over the TLX Tech I4. A similar trend can be found for the IS350 and its packages.
That's fair, but the IS is WORTH it for that cost increase over the TLX in both driving and style. The difference comes down to ~$42k for the TLX advance and ~$49k for the IS350 F Sport.
The IS250 is a much slower car than the TLX 2.4. There's really no contest.
IS250 isn't worth it, the 2.5L engine is a dog. I wouldn't recommend that one to anyone.
The IS350 is about as fast as an Accord V6. There's no test result of the TLX 3.5, but I guess it's safe to assume that car is about as fast as the Accord V6 and IS350.
Even more reason to buy the Accord over the TLX.
The TLX comes in at ~6.0s to 60 while the IS350 and Accord V6 come in at ~5.6s.Anyway, my point is, the IS350 will most likely not be much faster than the TLX V6, and it's more expensive than the TLX.
It's not only about straight line speed (which , the dynamics of the car are just so much better and the infotainment doesn't require a PhD in computer science to understand. Even though it's more expensive, it's worth the extra money to buy it because it's a better car. There are a lot of instances where it's not worth it like the Accord vs TLX example but this isn't one of them.
10-09-2014, 11:17 AM
Senior Moderator
the world will be shocked, the markets will crash, there will be looting and rioting
10-09-2014, 12:46 PM
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
FWD, there's no 2.4 FWD. It will probably be dog slow if it had AWD, all that extra weight and losses with not much torque.
But ya, I don't think performance is much of an issue!
Sorry for being a bit of an @$$...haha...but thanks for the clarification! It's always nice to see the opinions of others.
1.) The TLX excels in being a complete package at a good price. I think this is similar to the 1g TSX and 3G TL. I think if you are willing to sacrifice many features, or have a higher budget, then there are the 3 series and C Class.
2.) I also agree that "it's that kind of thrill" is a bit of a joke. But then Honda and Acura have never been good with marketing...lol. To be fair though, most journalists seem to rate the TLX I4 highly in terms of driving fun.
3.) The Accord Touring is definitely a well equipped car, and represents a really good value. Once you go with the luxury route, the value wouldn't be the same. But what exactly do you get with $9k? Here's a partial list:
- Nicer interior
- Reduced NVH
- Acura vs Honda (doesn't mean a whole lot, but I still think it's a bit of a factor)
- Electronic gear selector
- Upgraded stereo
- cross traffic monitor
- Paddle shifters
- 9AT vs 6AT
- P-AWS
- Lane Keep Assist
- Road Departure Mitigation
- Collision Mitigation Braking System
Obviously there are some more, but I don't want to bore everyone here. Whether the extra stuff is worth $9k or not, I think it's a personal preference.
4.) Yea, the TLX has milano leather or whatever it's called. It's pretty nice!
5.) Haha, yes, the TLX is probably the largest in this class. I can definitely see what you mean that the TLX doesn't seem to have a class though.
6.) Your comments regarding the dynamics of the TLX is actually quite different than most journalists. I have yet to test drive one myself though. I'd like to find out when the drive event happens in my area.
7.) There has been no test data for the TLX V6 yet. So any comments on acceleration would be pure speculation. My speculation is based on the performance figures of the Accord V6 6AT, which is just as fast as an IS350 in the 1/4 mile and 0-60mph. We know that the TLX V6 is slightly heavier than the Accord, but it also has 3 extra gears and a bit more power. I guess we will find out soon enough.
But ya, I don't think performance is much of an issue!
Sorry for being a bit of an @$$...haha...but thanks for the clarification! It's always nice to see the opinions of others.
1.) The TLX excels in being a complete package at a good price. I think this is similar to the 1g TSX and 3G TL. I think if you are willing to sacrifice many features, or have a higher budget, then there are the 3 series and C Class.
2.) I also agree that "it's that kind of thrill" is a bit of a joke. But then Honda and Acura have never been good with marketing...lol. To be fair though, most journalists seem to rate the TLX I4 highly in terms of driving fun.
3.) The Accord Touring is definitely a well equipped car, and represents a really good value. Once you go with the luxury route, the value wouldn't be the same. But what exactly do you get with $9k? Here's a partial list:
- Nicer interior
- Reduced NVH
- Acura vs Honda (doesn't mean a whole lot, but I still think it's a bit of a factor)
- Electronic gear selector
- Upgraded stereo
- cross traffic monitor
- Paddle shifters
- 9AT vs 6AT
- P-AWS
- Lane Keep Assist
- Road Departure Mitigation
- Collision Mitigation Braking System
Obviously there are some more, but I don't want to bore everyone here. Whether the extra stuff is worth $9k or not, I think it's a personal preference.
4.) Yea, the TLX has milano leather or whatever it's called. It's pretty nice!
5.) Haha, yes, the TLX is probably the largest in this class. I can definitely see what you mean that the TLX doesn't seem to have a class though.
6.) Your comments regarding the dynamics of the TLX is actually quite different than most journalists. I have yet to test drive one myself though. I'd like to find out when the drive event happens in my area.
7.) There has been no test data for the TLX V6 yet. So any comments on acceleration would be pure speculation. My speculation is based on the performance figures of the Accord V6 6AT, which is just as fast as an IS350 in the 1/4 mile and 0-60mph. We know that the TLX V6 is slightly heavier than the Accord, but it also has 3 extra gears and a bit more power. I guess we will find out soon enough.
10-09-2014, 12:49 PM
Team Owner
They should just advertise for what it really is. A good reliable family car with decent tech at an affordable price.
That is all it is.
They emphasized too much on Performance that it really does not have.
That is all it is.
They emphasized too much on Performance that it really does not have.
The following 2 users liked this post by oonowindoo:
JS + XES (10-09-2014),
justnspace (10-21-2014)
10-09-2014, 12:57 PM
The following 2 users liked this post by iforyou:
civicdrivr (10-17-2014),
JS + XES (10-09-2014)
10-19-2014, 05:19 PM
I feel the need...
10-21-2014, 10:32 AM
Fahrvergnügen'd
The dogmatic defense of Acura in this thread is simply astounding. It's like everyone defending Acura has some sort of personal stake in the reputation of the company. It's ridiculous. Be a fan, but not a fanatic.
This iteration of the TL is certainly better than the last one. That should help it be more competitive. However, I still believe that this car is competing with high end family sedans like the Fusion Titanium AWD and not a BMW. Acura is not a top tier brand. It's not aspirational like a Lexus or a Mercedes.
Acura may never be there but it may not have to be successful.
This iteration of the TL is certainly better than the last one. That should help it be more competitive. However, I still believe that this car is competing with high end family sedans like the Fusion Titanium AWD and not a BMW. Acura is not a top tier brand. It's not aspirational like a Lexus or a Mercedes.
Acura may never be there but it may not have to be successful.
10-21-2014, 12:36 PM
The dogmatic defense of Acura in this thread is simply astounding. It's like everyone defending Acura has some sort of personal stake in the reputation of the company. It's ridiculous. Be a fan, but not a fanatic.
This iteration of the TL is certainly better than the last one. That should help it be more competitive. However, I still believe that this car is competing with high end family sedans like the Fusion Titanium AWD and not a BMW. Acura is not a top tier brand. It's not aspirational like a Lexus or a Mercedes.
Acura may never be there but it may not have to be successful.
This iteration of the TL is certainly better than the last one. That should help it be more competitive. However, I still believe that this car is competing with high end family sedans like the Fusion Titanium AWD and not a BMW. Acura is not a top tier brand. It's not aspirational like a Lexus or a Mercedes.
Acura may never be there but it may not have to be successful.
10-21-2014, 12:42 PM
The following users liked this post:
skd2k1 (10-21-2014)
10-21-2014, 01:00 PM
Moderator
The following users liked this post:
fsttyms1 (10-21-2014)
10-21-2014, 02:32 PM
10-21-2014, 03:16 PM
Moderator
10-21-2014, 08:45 PM
Team Owner
disappointed is more appropriate.
Last edited by oonowindoo; 10-21-2014 at 08:50 PM.
10-22-2014, 12:52 AM
Let's tell the truth: they played it SAFE. They badly needed a sedan "sellable".
It's not thrilling.
it's not sporty.
It's not a new ground-breaker.
It's a good car, without much presence, and with an awkward interior and the same engines we saw more or less in the last ten years.
If this is the best they can do, sorry: not for me.
The following users liked this post:
ttribe (10-22-2014)
10-22-2014, 07:39 AM
Senior Moderator
...we could be less disappointed if Acura stopped bragging around about how the TLX is by far the best car they have got in 30 years...
Let's tell the truth: they played it SAFE. They badly needed a sedan "sellable".
It's not thrilling.
it's not sporty.
It's not a new ground-breaker.
It's a good car, without much presence, and with an awkward interior and the same engines we saw more or less in the last 20 years.
If this is the best they can do, sorry: not for me.
Let's tell the truth: they played it SAFE. They badly needed a sedan "sellable".
It's not thrilling.
it's not sporty.
It's not a new ground-breaker.
It's a good car, without much presence, and with an awkward interior and the same engines we saw more or less in the last 20 years.
If this is the best they can do, sorry: not for me.
Its a good car, but they could have done much better.
10-22-2014, 10:51 AM
99 TL, 06 E350
If Nissan makes the new Maxima as close as the concept, it will kill the TLX since most shoppers will cross shop both cars.
Considering what the new 2015 Nissan Murano looks like, the new Maxima will look close to concept:
<<<@!1!@>>>
Considering what the new 2015 Nissan Murano looks like, the new Maxima will look close to concept:
<<<@!1!@>>>
10-22-2014, 11:24 AM
Moderator
Not feeling the 370Z headlights on the Murano.
The Maxima on the other hand, not too bad. CVT kills it for me, assuming it will carry over.
The Maxima on the other hand, not too bad. CVT kills it for me, assuming it will carry over.
10-22-2014, 12:21 PM
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
...we could be less disappointed if Acura stopped bragging around about how the TLX is by far the best car they have got in 30 years...
Let's tell the truth: they played it SAFE. They badly needed a sedan "sellable".
It's not thrilling.
it's not sporty.
It's not a new ground-breaker.
It's a good car, without much presence, and with an awkward interior and the same engines we saw more or less in the last ten years.
If this is the best they can do, sorry: not for me.
Let's tell the truth: they played it SAFE. They badly needed a sedan "sellable".
It's not thrilling.
it's not sporty.
It's not a new ground-breaker.
It's a good car, without much presence, and with an awkward interior and the same engines we saw more or less in the last ten years.
If this is the best they can do, sorry: not for me.
10-22-2014, 01:23 PM
Ex-OEM King
10-22-2014, 02:57 PM
I think I've heard every single negative about the tlx 10 times over now. 
10-22-2014, 05:01 PM
the numbers are better than sonata turbo.
2015 Hyundai Sonata Sport 2.0T Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2015 Hyundai Sonata Sport 2.0T Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
Hyundai's really moving upmarket. Equus. Genesis. And now the Sonata.
10-22-2014, 05:28 PM
2015 Acura TLX 2.4L Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
Instrumented test of TLX 2.4 is out from Car and Driver:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 134 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 179 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.83 g
Instrumented test of TLX 2.4 is out from Car and Driver:
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 134 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 179 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.83 g
Motor Trend got:
Zero to 60: 7.2 sec
¼-mile: 15.6 sec @ 91.1 MPH
Braking, 60-0 mph: 122 ft
Lateral Acceleration (Skidpad): 0.84 g (avg)
Figure Eight: 27.0 sec @ 0.74 g (avg)
The familiar 2.4 engine has enough poke to get the TLX off the line briskly, and we were pleased with its smoothness and sound. But our instrumented testing shows it’s not any quicker than the TSX it replaces. In fact, at the track we managed a 7.2-second 0-60-mph run, which is actually 0.2 second slower than the last TSX we tested, a 2012 manual-equipped 2.4-liter model. That gap held out at the quarter-mile, with the TLX returning a 15.6-second time at a slightly higher 91.1-mph trap speed. This was especially surprising to us given the similar curb weights of the two cars (the TLX weighs just 100 pounds more than the TSX, despite its additional equipment and larger overall size) and the TLX’s advantageous, quick-shifting dual-clutch gearbox. Those looking for more straight-line punch will want to investigate the optional 3.5-liter V-6 TLX or a BMW 320i -- our last 2014 version managed a 6.6-second 0 to 60 mph run and a 15.1-second quarter mile. Other competitive times from the MT test archive include a 2012 Audi A4 2.0T Quattro (5.8 seconds to 60 mph) and a 2013 Cadillac ATS (6.0 seconds to 60 mph). Admittedly, all these competitors have turbocharged 2.0-liter engines, something Acura doesn’t offer, and the Audi and Cadillac both have a strong horsepower advantage.
On the figure-eight course the TLX managed slightly better, with a best lap of 27.0 seconds at a 0.74g average. The TSX required an additional 0.2 second and registered a significantly lower 0.62g average. Braking from 60 mph to a standstill was identical between the two cars, at 122 feet. On the skidpad, the TLX pipped its ancestor by just a hundredth of a g, hitting 0.84g. Dynamically, the TLX is more entertaining to drive with its fairly neutral tendencies as opposed to the steady push the TSX was keen to deliver. The 320i we tested ran a 26.1-second time around our figure eight, nearly a full second quicker, and stopped from 60 mph in just 109 feet. The A4 and ATS ran 25.9-second and 26.3-second figure eights, respectively.
As a complete package, the TLX feels like a good compromise between the TL and TSX and is vastly improved over both of those cars in terms of driving dynamics, interior aesthetics and quality, and available technology. That said, the TLX 2.4 can’t quite keep up with its turbocharged competition. Keep a watch for our full test of the more powerful Acura TLX V-6, coming soon.
On the figure-eight course the TLX managed slightly better, with a best lap of 27.0 seconds at a 0.74g average. The TSX required an additional 0.2 second and registered a significantly lower 0.62g average. Braking from 60 mph to a standstill was identical between the two cars, at 122 feet. On the skidpad, the TLX pipped its ancestor by just a hundredth of a g, hitting 0.84g. Dynamically, the TLX is more entertaining to drive with its fairly neutral tendencies as opposed to the steady push the TSX was keen to deliver. The 320i we tested ran a 26.1-second time around our figure eight, nearly a full second quicker, and stopped from 60 mph in just 109 feet. The A4 and ATS ran 25.9-second and 26.3-second figure eights, respectively.
As a complete package, the TLX feels like a good compromise between the TL and TSX and is vastly improved over both of those cars in terms of driving dynamics, interior aesthetics and quality, and available technology. That said, the TLX 2.4 can’t quite keep up with its turbocharged competition. Keep a watch for our full test of the more powerful Acura TLX V-6, coming soon.
10-22-2014, 05:32 PM
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
That's about right. It's much faster than the TSX AT that it replaced, and roughly as fast as the TSX 6MT, which is not bad. The numbers so far suggest the TLX 2.4 is competitive against the IS250, ATS 2.5 and 320i while costing thousands of dollars less when similarly equipped.
10-22-2014, 06:11 PM
Moderator
10-22-2014, 06:41 PM
I feel the need...
I've never cross shopped a Maxima.
10-22-2014, 09:10 PM
2G TLX-S
The following users liked this post:
civicdrivr (10-23-2014)
10-23-2014, 08:02 AM
