Saintor

A bored 3.8L 325HP NA from the same block would a nice, inexpensive way to achieve it.

ggesq

iTrader: (1)

I would really like to see a Type S variant get a twin turbo V6. Would make that model competitive hypothetically speaking in its segment. A guy can dream right?

a35tl

Couldn't agree more. That would be an awesome TLX Type S.

Nedmundo

Maybe I'm imagining this, but was there a rumor that Acura might get a turbo five cylinder based on the Honda turbo fours? Acura's Vigor used a five, so there is some precedent for this, and it would be a cool way to differentiate the TLX from Honda-brand sedans and the ILX. I seriously doubt it for multiple reasons, but anyone else recall a rumor or speculation to this effect?

CaliAtenza

To back up that theory, the insider over on TOV said that it would be a V6 with some sort of forced induction. Acura/Honda do have the V6TT in the NSX; maybe a version of that engine will filter down to this supposed Type-S variant of the TLX.

TacoBello

Doubtful. Honda doesn't even manufacturer that engine- they outsource it and it is likely a very expensive block. If anything, I think they could/should turbo a regular J -series. J30T would be hot.

TacoBello

Id say no. Acura did this in the 4G TL- they took a 3.5L and bored it out to 3.7L and coated the cylinder walls with something rather. Either way, it ended up with a lot of the 3.7s suffering from varying degrees of oil consumption. Also, 3.8L is getting to be a big V6. Bore and stroke ratio might get goofy and may not allow for high revs, without redesigning.

TacoBello

it sure would.

Which would you prefer, a V6T, or a 2.0T with SH-AWD?

Saintor

Well you don't know that.

The Q50 has a 3.7 328HP.

One big problem with T or TT is the additional cost. Not sure that we are prepared to be $46-50K for a TLX-S when a 340i M-Sport 2017 is $48895 (base).

ggesq

iTrader: (1)

I would have zero issues dropping 50k for a TT V6 Acura TLX mated to a proper DCT ( because lets face it a 6MT is not happening) power train assuming it came loaded with a lot of the standard features one would expect at that price point. I really really like the 340i but loaded the way I would want it, Acura could really compete at that level again????

BEAR-AvHistory

You don't need high revs to make power with a near 4 liter engine. Our Genesis Coupe R-spec is 3.8 liters & makes 348BHP @ 6400.

That said displacement also does not limit the ability to rev if the money is spent on the internals. The 5.0 in my ugly kit car makes its peak power at 7200rpm with a 7800rpm computer limited red line. The new 5.2 versions are peak power 582 @ 7800 with a redline of 8,000rpm.

Key to growth is a proper bore & stroke balance so you don't get thin cylinder walls or weird rod angles.. For the TLX a lot of how much it can grow is its basic block design.

TacoBello

You're right... As long as the bore/stroke ratio works. I didn't say it wouldn't work for the J-series. But it is a point of consideration. You can't just bore an engine out to whatever size you want. The genesis engine was designed to work with that displacement. The J-series could very well do it, but eventually it's going to hit a limitation point. That's all I was saying.

you also have a flat plane crank in your kit car, do you not? I'm not exactly sure which engine you have in there.

a35tl

Personally, I would prefer the V6T. Which would you prefer?

alpha0

Whatever V6T Acura is planning (if any), they will have plans to use it for RLX and probably performance version of MDX. And if those vehicles in future (FMC) will use longitudinal layout, this engine needs to be designed for that. Unless same engine can be used for transverse for TLX-S at MMC and longitudinal for future use, Acura will not spend money on it.

TacoBello

gah, I really don't know.

to be honest, as awesome as the real SH system is (the NSX/RLX one), I feel there would be more room for modding with the V6T. At 300ish hp, the 2.0T is already pretty high strung. But the SH system puts power down so fast, that it would be a rocket off the line, without necessarily high numbers overall. I'd be scared to push a 2.0T too hard in terms of cranking power out of it.

i think I would prefer the V6T. Though either one would be really cool.

BEAR-AvHistory

Agree you need balance in the bore & stroke ratio. Built a 406 small block Mighty Mouse & the cylinder walls were scary thin. Had to drill additional water holes between the block & heads to insure proper cooling.

Kit car does not have a flat plane crank that is an Shelby 350/350R exclusive. FORD says its to keep the unique sound as a Shelby feature. I have a modified & dyno tunned cross plane 90 degree crank based COYOTE. All thing being equal the flat plane crank is worth 40/50WHP over the 90* crank. The flat plane crank cylinder heads with cross plane firing order cams is a FORD Racing standalone product. The heads are the part that deliver a lot of the power & are good pieces if you don't want to go with a supercharger.

With the TLX would buy a V6T before a 2.0T. Even when comparing turbo engines you can't beat cubic inches.

TacoBello

Agreed! Also, the genesis 3.8L was probably designed to be of that displacement. Boring out a 3.5L to 3.8L might work... But the 4G TL showed us that whatever they coated the cylinder walls with likely wasn't a good idea. Makes me wonder if 3.7L was as far as they would safely bore it. The oil consumption on a brand new car would drive me insane.

Also, I agree, if the car is just turbo'd, I'd take the V6 over the I4 any day of the week. But what if the I4 came with the true SH system, paired to the electric motors? Ideally, it would be a V6T with that system, but I have a feeling we would be asking Acura for too much. I'm not Even sure they'll give us a 2.0T with that system. But for hypothetical purposes, would you still go V6T, or 2.0T with electric SH?

the more I think about it, I think I'd prefer just the V6T with regular SH-AWD (no electric motors). More tunability, less high strung engine, and no electrical gremlins from the SH system. So far, the amount of random issues the RLX-SH owners are having, I'm not sure I'd want to go that route. Unless of course the system is bullet proof. But that hasn't been the case yet.

Nedmundo

I'd prefer a strong turbo four over a V6. Modern turbo fours have so much torque that they work fine in mid-size sedans (and small SUV's), even with AWD, and I'll take the lighter front end, superior handling and (probably) better fuel economy over the extra punch from a V6.

My previous car was a 2001 SAAB 9-5 Aero, and even at 3,600 pounds it was a BEAST with its 2.3L turbo four. It wasn't so great 0-60 (gearing, torque reduction), but it simply dominated the highway -- and could get about 33 mpg cruising at 75. It was a little rough and didn't sound great at low rpm, but newer turbo fours are much smoother. For example, I've driven the F30 BMW 3 Series and Focus ST, which had outstanding engines, and both have been improved since then. (Well, the ST doesn't have Ford's twin-scroll turbo yet, but the next gen will.) No reason Honda/Acura shouldn't equal or surpass those.

mk5

You know, at first I was thinking forced induction, but that would be, let's say, a detune, of the NSX 3.5 TT engine. Plausible, but it is hard to imagine them stuffing that in the front of the current TLX at a reasonable cost.

The 2.0T wouldn't make sense because the 3.5L NA engine has similar power. Now, if they were to do away with the 3.5L and make the 2.0T the upgrade option for the new generation of non-Type S models, I could see that happening and it WOULD make sense.

So that comes down to my prediction of the two most reasonable scenarios for the Type S: (1) further massaging of the 3.5L to generate more power/torque OR (2) a Sport Hybrid w/ the 3.0L system going into the MDX.

I am putting my money on option 2, the SH-SH-AWD, but secretly hoping for the dark horse: either the 3.5TT or similar new engine.

TacoBello

3.5TT engine probably costs as much as an entire TLX. It is not a cheap engine and is outsourced to cosworth racing (I believe, can't remember) to be built. Plus, then there is too much overlap of the halo car with a mid level sedan. Not gonna happen.

I think you might be right on the 3.0 with sport hybrid.

RLX will remain with 3.5 with sport hybrid.

Enough seperation between the cars to keep Acura happy. The 3.0 with SH might not have crazy power numbers, but it will be fast regardless. At least until the electric motors shut off at speed.

Aurelius

I had two 9-5's a 2003 and 2008. That car was freaking amazing on the highway.Once I hit the "S" button on the shifter it was lights out. Such a sleeper. Top gear reported they were faster than 911 from 40-70 mph thus the great highway performance. I miss that company so much!!!

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

the 5.7s figure of the CTR came from Honda. Real world testing is closer to 5.2-5.3s. Also, the CTR is limited by FWD traction, it just wouldn't launch as well as a AWD car. Last but not least, IIRC, you need 2 shifts to reach 60mph in the CTR, which adds a few tenths.


The 3.5L in the RLX makes 310hp and 272lbft. The current 9th gen CTR makes 306hp and 295lbft. The 10th gen CTR is said to be making 335hp and 320lbft of torque. It's safe to say that the 2.0T is noticeably more powerful than the most powerful J35 available - especially in terms of torque output.

That's not really too crazy for a 2.0T, considering the CLA45 AMG makes 380hp with its 2.0T.

If the TLX Type S does get the 2.0T, I think 315hp/tq is possible.

TacoBello

That level of boost starts to scare me (the 380hp). I wonder how long those engines will last. I remember the early CLA45s were destroying themselves, though I don't remember why. Those were "only" pushing 360hp, I believe.

Regardless, 315hp doesn't sound that nuts, but the 300+lbft of torque would make it fly. I too used to be sceptical of turbo engines. Not that I didn't believe their power output, but rather, I didn't think they were reliable. Suffice to say, today's turbo systems are far from those of the 80s. I have seen the light and I fully embrace them. OEM systems are just as easy to maintain as NA cars, with maybe with a wee bit more maintenance (slightly more frequent oil changes, etc).

alpha0

iforyou - i think TLX with SHAWD will be atleast 500-600 lbs heavier than CTR. AWD and gear ratios can compensate for some of it but not all..

kevTL888

at this point the idea of a TT V6 should be thrown out of the window, not gonna happen, period. the best we can or at least i can hope for is the same 2.0T in CTR to replace the current V6 or have a Type-S with the same V6 but with a few higher hp and torque numbers.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Ya I have a friend with a CLA45AMG and he blew his engine..lol.

Alpha0, my point is that based on the ratings, the 2.0T is more powerful than the 3.5L NA engine. If the current NA TLX AWD is seeing 0-60mph in 5.7s or something, I'd expect the 2.0T to be faster than that.

Also, it's been noted that the the K20C is making about 295whp in the CTR on a dynojet. Perhaps putting a slushbox on it would put it closer to 275whp. The RLX FWD with 6AT puts down 259whp. With the TLX rated 20hp less than the RLX, I'd imagine a TLX FWD V6 is probably good for 245whp or so. That's some 30whp less.

alpha0

[QUOTE=iforyou;15973715]Ya I have a friend with a CLA45AMG and he blew his engine..lol.

Alpha0, my point is that based on the ratings, the 2.0T is more powerful than the 3.5L NA engine. If the current NA TLX AWD is seeing 0-60mph in 5.7s or something, I'd expect the 2.0T to be faster than that.

Also, it's been noted that the the K20C is making about 295whp in the CTR on a dynojet. Perhaps putting a slushbox on it would put it closer to 275whp. The RLX FWD with 6AT puts down 259whp. With the TLX rated 20hp less than the RLX, I'd imagine a TLX FWD V6 is probably good for 245whp or so. That's some 30whp less.[/QUOTE}

I agree torque will be better in turbo 4 in low/mid rpm. I read on driveaccord that people with V6 accords were sent surveys about whether they will buy accord with 2.0 Turbo. I am not aware of such survey for TLX owners or potential TLX owners..

RDX10

The issue here is that Acura needs to start differentiating the Acura from Honda engines so if the Accord gets a range topping 2.0T, the 2.0T should at most be the mid level engine in the TLX (preferably the base engine like everyone else is doing) and then they should have the V6 and then top it off either with a V6T/TT or a Sport Hybrid tech matched with either the 2.0T or a V6.

alpha0

If i am product manager, i will follow market segments - entry level vehicles in this segment have about 250-270 hp and lb-ft. 290 hp engine is competing with that segment and can be replaced with turbo 4 (they may lose some customers who love J35). Next level vehicles are about 330-350 hp and lb-ft. Acura needs TLX variant in that space. Top tier is above 400hp and lb-ft which Acura should skip as of now.

4 cyl accord touring (with 2.0 Turbo) and tubor 4 ILX should take place for 4 cyl NA TLX.

BEAR-AvHistory

Bottom line is a 3.5T or even a 3T can make at lot more power & torque with less pressure & less stress on the engine parts. Really like an 18.5PSI 3T (410WHP) over a 25PSI 2T (300whp) in a street car.

RDX10

Agree completely! Not to mention 2.0T engines are used in base models of almost everything else, never the top.

The one issue with a V6T engine is that Honda doesn't have any DOHC V6 engines to use as the base for this. SOHC turbo V6's will not work as well as DOHC. When the sport hybrid MDX news first came out, there was a typo stating it was a DOHC 3.0L V6. Sadly it was a typo and instead they are using the 3.0L V6 from the chinese market RDX.

TacoBello

Psi is dictated by turbine size, is it not? You can have a 2.0T pushing 18psi... That means it's either higher boost small turbine, or a lower boost bigger turbine (and more lag).

BEAR-AvHistory

BMW 2T runs 20+PSI now to get the 260 whatever HP they are at.. IIRC the JB4 2T was in the 23PSI area. The stock 335is ran 15PSI. Standard 335 about 10psi. My modified & tuned 335is ran 18.5PSI. Don't know what boost the current B58 engines are running. Stopped following it as I kept my 435 limited to the MPPK/MPE package from BMW.

Bigger turbos on a given engine usually extend the top end performance because they can physically move more air. That's why most street turbo applications max power is under 6500rpm. If you get too big for the engine you lose the bottom end & induce lag. That said all things equal a bigger turbo with produce more PSI that a small one.

Remember you are trying to compress air so the more air you can move into a given space the more it will be compressed.

TacoBello

Hmm, my bad, I had it backwards. thanks for clarifying.

but with a bigger turbine on any given engine, you start to get lag because it takes higher engine speeds to develop the necessary pressure to move it... Wouldn't that effectively be decreasing the amount of boost? I guess once it's actually spinning, then it would ultimately create more boost.

I might be confusing things here. I dunno.

RDX10

I know shit all about the exact mechanics of turbos, but I think from a pure logic point of view, a bigger turbine would cause more lag because it takes more exhast pressure to turn, but with being bigger it has the "potential" to produce more boost and therefore more power. So bigger turbine does not equal less boost, only more lag. Hence the need for twin scroll and the very rare (but pretty fricken cool that the 1G RDX had it) variable geometry turbos (usually only found on really expensive cars like some Porsche models). These are all attempts at creating more pressure from less air flow and in the case if the variable geometry turbos open up at the top end or else risk impeding air flow and therefore performance.

Though in regards to what you were talking about earlier, I don't think the other guy was saying you had to have more psi in a smaller turbo, he was trying to get at the point that less pressure would put less strain on the engine so a V6 with 300hp and lets say 12psi is obviously less strained than a I4 with 300hp pushing 20psi. He was talking strictly from a reliability or strain point of view.

BEAR-AvHistory

Agree. Also with a street car you want the turbo in early because that is where most of the real world driving takes place. The brands that are very turbo oriented will advertise about 100% available torque at 1200/1500RPM. Those same cars when fitted with large aftermarket turbos that will jump the max power from 300 to 700WHP will not have big torque increase till in many cases 3000RPM.

My 3.0 was set to 18.5PSI with a drop dead limit of 19PSI running 95 to 100 octane fuel vs 12/13PSI stock on 93 octane. That is another reason you can't go crazy with boost. The required fuel to take advantage of it is not very common at the local gas station. High boost with insufficient octane will just cause the ECU to sense detonation (knock) & pull the timing back reducing power. Tubos also have waste gates to bleed off excess boost. The ECU manages the dance of all the various systems involved.

BEAR-AvHistory

306HP 2T CivicR to be sold for $35K in the US. Be interesting to see what this option would cost in a TLX given the price spread over a basic Civic.

TacoBello

What does a normal civic top out at?

mk5

I think $28k fully optioned.

RDX10

A fully decked out sedan is about 28k as mk5 mentioned (just checked the Honda US site). But holy shit, 28k for a civic? Yes it's loaded but have they always been that pricey? Also 7k to bump up to type r is a big jump from touring. Wow.