2015 Acura TLX Official Specs
07-07-2014, 12:55 AM
#41
Hmm... from poking around the Internets, it's amazing how many vehicles don't have passenger seat height adjustments. I see people complaining about the Genesis (2012) not having it, Lexus CT200 doesn't/didn't, and various lower-priced vehicles not having it (Subarus, Camaros, etc.). Weird. I guess it's a luxury feature for passengers. lol.
07-07-2014, 09:45 AM
#43
i'd have to agree...but a lot of people wanted a smaller car with better proportions. I guess when they said tsx exterior size with TL interior it wasn't actually possible (apart from the cargo space). I would've thought they'd mimic what the germans do and carve out a portion of the back of the front seats to get the rear legroom up.
07-08-2014, 12:50 PM
#45
Instructor
EPA dimension/volume guidelines
Info on EPA passenger/cargo volumes and interior dimensions RECOMMENDED guidelines using SAE standard J1100; mfrs. can use any of the published guideline versions from 1973 (e.g. Toyota) to 2009. Variances can occur from where it's measured to what seat height/back angle for the test dummy (95th percentile height / 50th percentile waist) is used. See article for pics.
Gary
___________________
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...the-truth.html
Why Cargo Specs Can Stretch the Truth
When Acura redesigned its popular MDX crossover for 2014, press materials specified 90.9 cubic feet of maximum cargo room, a significant increase over the prior MDX's 83.5 cubic feet. Still, something didn't quite add up. The new MDX was 2 inches longer from bumper to bumper, but height and width had decreased 1.5 and 1.3 inches, respectively. How had cargo room increased 8.9 percent?
Acura explained: Maximum cargo room was actually 68.4 cubic feet, not 90.9 cubic feet. It explained both numbers in the fine print on its consumer website as "based on [the] SAE J1100 cargo volume measurement standard plus floor space between first and second seats and front seats moved forward. This figure compares more accurately with most competitive measurements."
That should certainly clear things up for shoppers trying to find a car with enough room to get the kids to soccer practice or cross-country for a summer vacation.
What Acura doesn't say is that you can't even compare the 68.4 cubic feet in the 2014 model with the 2013 MDX's 83.5 cubic feet because Acura derived the numbers from different versions of SAE J1100. SAE J1100 is a widely adopted methodology from the Society of Automotive Engineers to measure interior space, but its roots go back more than five decades.
The Tower of Babel
Why is it so hard to compare cargo space? It's because different automakers follow different cargo space accounting methods. The methodology in question, called SAE J1100 Motor Vehicle Dimensions, is rooted in SAE drafting standards from 1963. A formal version was approved in 1973 with comprehensive revision in 1975. Eight subsequent versions came between 1984 and 2009, explained Neil Mitchell, a senior design engineer at GM. But there's little consistency as to which version automakers use. Toyota said it employs the 1975 version, which it says the EPA mandates for cargo volumes that classify a car as subcompact, compact and so on. Hyundai said it uses the 2002 version; Honda said it uses the 2005 version. Chrysler, GM and Ford said they use the 2009 version.
Six of the seven automakers we contacted use four different versions of the standard. The seventh automaker, Nissan, did not respond to our queries.
Honda told us in an email from its Ohio-based engineering group that the revisions change little.
The basic formula is the same: Take a cargo area and measure the length, width and height. Multiply it all together and that's your cargo room, explained Manda Mustaine, a vehicle-packaging specialist in Ford's engineering division.
But the versions of SAE J1100 alter which spaces in a car can be measured in the first place.
The Real World
"The inside of a vehicle is not uniform," Mustaine said. "You have wheel wells. You have a curved roof surface. It depends on where exactly you would measure." Most measures take an average between two lengths, two widths and two heights, she said. That accounts for the uneven nature of interior space, at least somewhat, because multiple measurements allow somewhat for, say, the curved tailgate or bulky wheel wells. But "there is potential that someone could take advantage of a potential nuance in the surface of the vehicle and say, 'Oh, no, no, we're allowed to measure this point here,' " Mustaine said.
Those dimensions can be manipulated by seat positioning, storage nooks and more. The Acura example illustrates this: The old MDX was measured using the 2002 version of J1100, said a former Honda representative who asked not to be named. (Acura is Honda's luxury division.) The redesign was measured using the 2009 version. If you measure the new MDX using the same method as its predecessor, its cargo room goes to roughly 75 cubic feet from 83.5 cubic feet, the spokesman said; measure it with the 2009 revision and the number falls to 68.4 cubic feet.
2011 Acura MDX 2014 Acura MDX
Click for larger version
We compared photos of the previous generation and current generation (above) with golf clubs behind the third row. You can see that even with the difference in measurements, there is little practical change to cargo space.
The redesigned 2013 Toyota RAV4 has a maximum cargo room of 73.4 cubic feet and 38.4 cubic feet with the rear seats in place, significant numbers in the class. When Jeep revealed specs of its all-new Cherokee SUV (which is longer and wider than the RAV4), the numbers did not look good in comparison at 54.9 cubic feet max and 24.8 cubic feet with the seats in place. Look at the side-by-side photo (below) with our grocery bag test (10 recyclable bags filled with identical items) and the extra 13.6 cubic feet behind the second row looks like it can accommodate only one or two extra bags in the Toyota. That's not a huge real-world advantage.
2013 Toyota RAV4 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Click for larger version
What about seating position? Updates to J1100 through much of the 2000s attempted to clarify just where the seats go before you measure cargo space. Some used a robotic seat-measuring tool. Others reverted to SAE-spec mannequins with 95th percentile legs and 50th percentile torsos, Ford's Mustaine said.
The result created some consistency as to where the seats go before an automaker measures cargo room, but variances are possible.
"Can you influence things a little bit here and there? Yes," Mustaine said. "Just think of the seatback angle. So even if you use different [driving] positions, whatever you define as your seatback angle ... that can have more of a significant impact" on cargo room.
Trunk Versus Open Space
The type of cargo area matters, too. SAE stipulates a different method to measure space in an enclosed trunk in a sedan or coupe. Automakers have to fit SAE-specified blocks that simulate luggage parcels into the trunk and add them up. But the open spaces in SUVs, minivans, wagons and hatchbacks don't lend themselves easily to these blocks, and that's why the SAE and regulators invented the length/width/height calculations, GM's Mitchell explained.
That means you can't compare a sedan's trunk with a hatchback's cargo area and declare one larger than the other using only SAE cargo specs.
Ford Focus Hatchback - Ford Focus Sedan
Click for larger version
Take the Ford Focus (above) as an example. It comes in sedan and hatchback form. The hatchback's cargo area behind the second row is rated at 23.8 cubic feet while the sedan's trunk is rated at 13.2 cubic feet. Looking at the images it's hard to see where the 10.6 added cubic feet would come into play in the grocery store parking lot. Stacking items above the top of the rear seat could be dangerous to passengers.
"In general, the enclosed-trunk method yields a result about 10 to 15 percent lower than the precise volume of the trunk because its purpose is to represent the usable cargo space for actual things owners will want to pack," Honda's engineers told us.
The Bottom Line
At the end of the day, automakers don't have to follow SAE guidelines when they publish cargo volumes. "If you look at the code of federal regulations, they state which procedure you're supposed to use when you look at [interior] volume," GM's Mitchell said. "But then you can measure it any way you want and use it in your advertising."
"SAE is not a governing body," Ford's Mustaine noted. "There is no advertising standard that is required by law."
All six automakers that responded to our questions said they follow SAE guidelines. Numbers can lie, so bring some salt and make sure you stack up our real-world cargo photos alongside those numbers when doing your research.
Editor's note: This post was updated on March 10 to reflect that SAE J1100 is rooted in 1963 drafting standards.
Cars.com photos by Evan Sears and Ian Merritt
By Kelsey Mays | March 10, 2014
Gary
___________________
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...the-truth.html
Why Cargo Specs Can Stretch the Truth
When Acura redesigned its popular MDX crossover for 2014, press materials specified 90.9 cubic feet of maximum cargo room, a significant increase over the prior MDX's 83.5 cubic feet. Still, something didn't quite add up. The new MDX was 2 inches longer from bumper to bumper, but height and width had decreased 1.5 and 1.3 inches, respectively. How had cargo room increased 8.9 percent?
Acura explained: Maximum cargo room was actually 68.4 cubic feet, not 90.9 cubic feet. It explained both numbers in the fine print on its consumer website as "based on [the] SAE J1100 cargo volume measurement standard plus floor space between first and second seats and front seats moved forward. This figure compares more accurately with most competitive measurements."
That should certainly clear things up for shoppers trying to find a car with enough room to get the kids to soccer practice or cross-country for a summer vacation.
What Acura doesn't say is that you can't even compare the 68.4 cubic feet in the 2014 model with the 2013 MDX's 83.5 cubic feet because Acura derived the numbers from different versions of SAE J1100. SAE J1100 is a widely adopted methodology from the Society of Automotive Engineers to measure interior space, but its roots go back more than five decades.
The Tower of Babel
Why is it so hard to compare cargo space? It's because different automakers follow different cargo space accounting methods. The methodology in question, called SAE J1100 Motor Vehicle Dimensions, is rooted in SAE drafting standards from 1963. A formal version was approved in 1973 with comprehensive revision in 1975. Eight subsequent versions came between 1984 and 2009, explained Neil Mitchell, a senior design engineer at GM. But there's little consistency as to which version automakers use. Toyota said it employs the 1975 version, which it says the EPA mandates for cargo volumes that classify a car as subcompact, compact and so on. Hyundai said it uses the 2002 version; Honda said it uses the 2005 version. Chrysler, GM and Ford said they use the 2009 version.
Six of the seven automakers we contacted use four different versions of the standard. The seventh automaker, Nissan, did not respond to our queries.
Honda told us in an email from its Ohio-based engineering group that the revisions change little.
The basic formula is the same: Take a cargo area and measure the length, width and height. Multiply it all together and that's your cargo room, explained Manda Mustaine, a vehicle-packaging specialist in Ford's engineering division.
But the versions of SAE J1100 alter which spaces in a car can be measured in the first place.
The Real World
"The inside of a vehicle is not uniform," Mustaine said. "You have wheel wells. You have a curved roof surface. It depends on where exactly you would measure." Most measures take an average between two lengths, two widths and two heights, she said. That accounts for the uneven nature of interior space, at least somewhat, because multiple measurements allow somewhat for, say, the curved tailgate or bulky wheel wells. But "there is potential that someone could take advantage of a potential nuance in the surface of the vehicle and say, 'Oh, no, no, we're allowed to measure this point here,' " Mustaine said.
Those dimensions can be manipulated by seat positioning, storage nooks and more. The Acura example illustrates this: The old MDX was measured using the 2002 version of J1100, said a former Honda representative who asked not to be named. (Acura is Honda's luxury division.) The redesign was measured using the 2009 version. If you measure the new MDX using the same method as its predecessor, its cargo room goes to roughly 75 cubic feet from 83.5 cubic feet, the spokesman said; measure it with the 2009 revision and the number falls to 68.4 cubic feet.
2011 Acura MDX 2014 Acura MDX
Click for larger version
We compared photos of the previous generation and current generation (above) with golf clubs behind the third row. You can see that even with the difference in measurements, there is little practical change to cargo space.
The redesigned 2013 Toyota RAV4 has a maximum cargo room of 73.4 cubic feet and 38.4 cubic feet with the rear seats in place, significant numbers in the class. When Jeep revealed specs of its all-new Cherokee SUV (which is longer and wider than the RAV4), the numbers did not look good in comparison at 54.9 cubic feet max and 24.8 cubic feet with the seats in place. Look at the side-by-side photo (below) with our grocery bag test (10 recyclable bags filled with identical items) and the extra 13.6 cubic feet behind the second row looks like it can accommodate only one or two extra bags in the Toyota. That's not a huge real-world advantage.
2013 Toyota RAV4 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Click for larger version
What about seating position? Updates to J1100 through much of the 2000s attempted to clarify just where the seats go before you measure cargo space. Some used a robotic seat-measuring tool. Others reverted to SAE-spec mannequins with 95th percentile legs and 50th percentile torsos, Ford's Mustaine said.
The result created some consistency as to where the seats go before an automaker measures cargo room, but variances are possible.
"Can you influence things a little bit here and there? Yes," Mustaine said. "Just think of the seatback angle. So even if you use different [driving] positions, whatever you define as your seatback angle ... that can have more of a significant impact" on cargo room.
Trunk Versus Open Space
The type of cargo area matters, too. SAE stipulates a different method to measure space in an enclosed trunk in a sedan or coupe. Automakers have to fit SAE-specified blocks that simulate luggage parcels into the trunk and add them up. But the open spaces in SUVs, minivans, wagons and hatchbacks don't lend themselves easily to these blocks, and that's why the SAE and regulators invented the length/width/height calculations, GM's Mitchell explained.
That means you can't compare a sedan's trunk with a hatchback's cargo area and declare one larger than the other using only SAE cargo specs.
Ford Focus Hatchback - Ford Focus Sedan
Click for larger version
Take the Ford Focus (above) as an example. It comes in sedan and hatchback form. The hatchback's cargo area behind the second row is rated at 23.8 cubic feet while the sedan's trunk is rated at 13.2 cubic feet. Looking at the images it's hard to see where the 10.6 added cubic feet would come into play in the grocery store parking lot. Stacking items above the top of the rear seat could be dangerous to passengers.
"In general, the enclosed-trunk method yields a result about 10 to 15 percent lower than the precise volume of the trunk because its purpose is to represent the usable cargo space for actual things owners will want to pack," Honda's engineers told us.
The Bottom Line
At the end of the day, automakers don't have to follow SAE guidelines when they publish cargo volumes. "If you look at the code of federal regulations, they state which procedure you're supposed to use when you look at [interior] volume," GM's Mitchell said. "But then you can measure it any way you want and use it in your advertising."
"SAE is not a governing body," Ford's Mustaine noted. "There is no advertising standard that is required by law."
All six automakers that responded to our questions said they follow SAE guidelines. Numbers can lie, so bring some salt and make sure you stack up our real-world cargo photos alongside those numbers when doing your research.
Editor's note: This post was updated on March 10 to reflect that SAE J1100 is rooted in 1963 drafting standards.
Cars.com photos by Evan Sears and Ian Merritt
By Kelsey Mays | March 10, 2014
07-11-2014, 12:05 AM
#46
Summer is Coming
Info on EPA passenger/cargo volumes and interior dimensions RECOMMENDED guidelines using SAE standard J1100; mfrs. can use any of the published guideline versions from 1973 (e.g. Toyota) to 2009. Variances can occur from where it's measured to what seat height/back angle for the test dummy (95th percentile height / 50th percentile waist) is used. See article for pics.
Gary
___________________
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...the-truth.html
....
Cars.com photos by Evan Sears and Ian Merritt
By Kelsey Mays | March 10, 2014
Gary
___________________
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...the-truth.html
....
Cars.com photos by Evan Sears and Ian Merritt
By Kelsey Mays | March 10, 2014
In the end we all just have to see they car, sit in it, and see how it feels. I suspect it will feel about the same inside as the current TL and that will be plenty for me.
07-11-2014, 12:08 AM
#47
Summer is Coming
I'll wait to see what the official specs out of Acura say. If these are true than the Accord is larger inside than the TLX (Accord has 100.8 Cu ft pf passenger vol) and 15.5 cu ft of trunk space.
But one thing that jumped out at me... even in the Advanced trim the passenger seat is only 4-way adjustable. That means NO HEIGHT adjustment. Not again Acura?!?!?!? WTF? A $42K car with no passenger height adjustment? This can't be correct. Please say is isn't so.
But one thing that jumped out at me... even in the Advanced trim the passenger seat is only 4-way adjustable. That means NO HEIGHT adjustment. Not again Acura?!?!?!? WTF? A $42K car with no passenger height adjustment? This can't be correct. Please say is isn't so.
"V-6 FEATURES
Powertrain: 290-hp, 3.5-liter, 24-valve, SOHC i-VTEC® V-6 engine, 9-speed automatic transmission with Sequential SportShift paddle shifters
EPA Fuel Economy Ratings38: 21 (city) / 34 (hwy) / 25 (combined)
Interior: Electronic gear selector, 8-way power front passenger’s seat including lumbar adjustment
Exterior: 18” aluminum-alloy wheels"
07-11-2014, 12:25 AM
#48
I've seen that article before but the reality is that it would not benefit Acura to underestimate the volume measurement for their new car in comparison to the old and especially to concurrent generation Honda cousins such as the Accord and Civic.
The article starts off with an example of the new MDX being advertised as being larger when it was in reality smaller. This is the exact opposite scenario. Larger interior volume would help market it against not only its competition but also to its predecessor.
How would it help Acura to make their new TLX artificially seem smaller than it is? Not only that but the EPA vehicle size classification system has predefined cut offs based on the volume and it directly affects the categorization of a vehicle with numerous institutions and organizations such as NHTSA, IIHS, JD Power, etc.
Something to think about for sure...
The article starts off with an example of the new MDX being advertised as being larger when it was in reality smaller. This is the exact opposite scenario. Larger interior volume would help market it against not only its competition but also to its predecessor.
How would it help Acura to make their new TLX artificially seem smaller than it is? Not only that but the EPA vehicle size classification system has predefined cut offs based on the volume and it directly affects the categorization of a vehicle with numerous institutions and organizations such as NHTSA, IIHS, JD Power, etc.
Something to think about for sure...
07-11-2014, 12:45 AM
#50
Instructor
I ignore volume measurements and compare outer and inner dimensions, which seem to be a bit more consistent. It's close to the Lexus IS, Infiniti Q50, etc. from my standpoint, and I like that it's smaller than the last one.
07-11-2014, 06:16 AM
#52
Drifting
But there is a SH-AWD option....
07-11-2014, 10:48 AM
#54
Acura TLX 2.4 Tech 9-2014
Breaking it down TSX 1ST (left side) and TLX 2ND (right side). So this to me is clearly very close to the current TSX interior room. I own a TSX, so would prefer something with a bit more room in back so this is a bit concerning, but at the same time the TSX size is pretty close to perfect. Either Acura was lying when they said it would have the same room as the TL or the TLXthrill site is wrong (which it is easy to have a typo in dimensions here and there to throw everything off). But that TLX wheelbase seems to say they should have much better interior room. The headroom in back of TLX has me a bit concerned though. But as you can see most specs are damn close to a TSX, and the weight is great. They lost 2 lbs and increased the tech significantly on the TLX over the TSX. Bottom I threw in and Audi A4 for a quick look.
Headroom, in (mm)
Curb Weight (lbs)FWD 2.4 3479 - 3483 up/wash
Height, in (mm) 56.7 (1440) - 57.00 up/wash
Width, in (mm) 72.4 (1840) - 73.00 up/wash
Just for comparisons an Audi A4 which seems pretty close to the competition is:
Interior measurements
Head room with sunroof (in, front) 38.0
Head room with sunroof (in, rear) 37.5
Head room (in, front) 36.9
Head room (in, rear) 37.5
Leg room (in, front) 41.3
Leg room (in, rear) 35.2
Shoulder room (in, front) 55.5
Shoulder room (in, rear) 54.3
Cargo volume (cu ft, cu ft, rear seatbacks up/folded) 12.4/34.0
Headroom, in (mm)
- 37.6 (955): Front 42.6 way up
- 37.0 (941): Rear 36.7 down/wash
- 42.4 (1078): Front 42.6 up/wash
- 34.3 (872): Rear 34.5 up/wash
- 55.6 (1411): Front 55.3 down/wash
- 54.2 (1377): Rear 54.9 up/wash
- 57.8 (1468): Front 57.5 down/wash
- 56.1 (1426): Rear 55.4 bigger down
- 94.5 - 93.3 down/wash
- 14.0 - 13.2 down/wash
Curb Weight (lbs)FWD 2.4 3479 - 3483 up/wash
Height, in (mm) 56.7 (1440) - 57.00 up/wash
Width, in (mm) 72.4 (1840) - 73.00 up/wash
Just for comparisons an Audi A4 which seems pretty close to the competition is:
Interior measurements
Head room with sunroof (in, front) 38.0
Head room with sunroof (in, rear) 37.5
Head room (in, front) 36.9
Head room (in, rear) 37.5
Leg room (in, front) 41.3
Leg room (in, rear) 35.2
Shoulder room (in, front) 55.5
Shoulder room (in, rear) 54.3
Cargo volume (cu ft, cu ft, rear seatbacks up/folded) 12.4/34.0
07-12-2014, 09:10 AM
#55
The interior volume has decreased by 5 cubic feet (to 93.3) compared to the outgoing TL (98.2) and is now even under the size of the TSX (94.5) and Civic (94.6). This number was first published on TLXthrill.com and has now been confirmed by both Acura's specs page on their official Canadian website as well as the specs listed now on Car and Driver's website.
If you listen to them closely in the videos whenever they address this they describe the TLX as having the same "tandem spacing" as the outgoing TL because of the wheelbase. Now I'm not sure if "tandem spacing" is an official engineering term but in a recent Acura video they show that it just means that the front to rear seat positioning is the same. This is however just a single axis measurement and not the same as overall passenger volume. Furthermore this is refuted by their own published rear foot room distance specs which have been cut significantly.
In the intro of the TLX Concept from Detroit, the head of Acura mentions that they were "targeting" the largest interior volume in its category. This is also somewhat vague because "targeting" doesn't mean that they achieved the goal and also what cars were they considering to be in the TLXs "category". The TLX is by numbers now an EPA rated "Compact" car and no longer "Midsize" like the TL. So are they looking at the "Compact" and Audi A3, Lexus IS, and the Mercedes CLA as its competitors? Those cars are really tiny.
Overall the numbers confirm that the TLX is, by size, more of a direct replacement for the outgoing TSX and is a much smaller car and even in a different EPA size category than the 3rd and 4th generation TL sedans.
Last edited by motegi; 07-12-2014 at 09:23 AM.
07-12-2014, 10:48 AM
#56
Unlike others, I actually DID listen to him closely when Mat Hargett himself said in this very video, after mentioning the tandem space, that the TLX has "just as much leg room and knee room as the outgoing TL, in a smaller package".
Whether or not he meant it literally, down to the centimeter, is not the point. Someone should tell him that the readers on Acurazine know more about his car than he does.
THAT is incorrect.
07-12-2014, 11:32 AM
#57
I'm glad to know that the self-appointed experts on the TLX, who have never even seen the car in person much less sat in one, know more about the vehicle than the man who designed and built it.
Unlike others, I actually DID listen to him closely when Mat Hargett himself said in this very video, after mentioning the tandem space, that the TLX has "just as much leg room and knee room as the outgoing TL, in a smaller package".
Whether or not he meant it literally, down to the centimeter, is not the point. Someone should tell him that the readers on Acurazine know more about his car than he does.
THAT is incorrect.
Unlike others, I actually DID listen to him closely when Mat Hargett himself said in this very video, after mentioning the tandem space, that the TLX has "just as much leg room and knee room as the outgoing TL, in a smaller package".
Whether or not he meant it literally, down to the centimeter, is not the point. Someone should tell him that the readers on Acurazine know more about his car than he does.
THAT is incorrect.
The TLX is a different size class of vehicle from the TL. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. It is what it is.
The TL was an EPA Midsize sedan.
The TLX is being positioned as a EPA Compact near luxury sedan alternative to the Mercedes CLA, Audi A3, and Lexus IS. I really think it will do very well there against the competition. I really do.
Why are people so adamantly denying the numbers? What benefit would Acura get from underestimating the size in their statistics if it is indeed as roomy as you suggest despite the actual dimensions saying otherwise?
I think it is especially confusing the way that Acurazine presents the TLX as the fifth generation TL when in fact it is closer to the outgoing TSX in size and starting price.
Last edited by motegi; 07-12-2014 at 11:43 AM.
07-12-2014, 11:36 AM
#58
07-12-2014, 11:52 AM
#59
Denying the facts doesn't make you right either. And Acura needs to present their car in the best light that they can. It's called advertising. If it is larger than the numbers as you suggest then wouldn't they have just published the larger numbers?
As I have said in other threads, interior design such as improving sight lines and the interior shapes such as the window openings can affect how the space is perceived by an occupant. These all relate to the subjective feelings of airiness or openness or alternatively feeling closed in.
The TLX is undeniably an EPA Compact size category car based on its interior volume numbers published by Acura themselves. This rating affects what cars it is compared against not only in reviews but also by IIHS, JD Power, Consumer Reports, US News and World Report, Edmunds, and the government for fuel mileage comparisons, etc.
The TL was an EPA rated midsize car.
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing as I think the TLX will do well in its segment. Why is this a problem for you?
Last edited by motegi; 07-12-2014 at 12:00 PM.
07-12-2014, 03:25 PM
#60
The person who made the car says it has the same room inside. You can ignore that fact all you want and recite numbers from the EPA, the Bible, Harry Potter, and any other source you wish; it does not make you right.
Size is definitely a problem for YOU, not me, as you have posted here and elsewhere ad nauseum about it. You obviously have an obsession and preoccupation with size, and we all know why that is.
Now write your inevitable "get the last word" post so you can get on with your life. That is what I will be doing.
Size is definitely a problem for YOU, not me, as you have posted here and elsewhere ad nauseum about it. You obviously have an obsession and preoccupation with size, and we all know why that is.
Now write your inevitable "get the last word" post so you can get on with your life. That is what I will be doing.
07-12-2014, 04:51 PM
#61
The person who made the car says it has the same room inside. You can ignore that fact all you want and recite numbers from the EPA, the Bible, Harry Potter, and any other source you wish; it does not make you right.
Size is definitely a problem for YOU, not me, as you have posted here and elsewhere ad nauseum about it. You obviously have an obsession and preoccupation with size, and we all know why that is.
Now write your inevitable "get the last word" post so you can get on with your life. That is what I will be doing.
Size is definitely a problem for YOU, not me, as you have posted here and elsewhere ad nauseum about it. You obviously have an obsession and preoccupation with size, and we all know why that is.
Now write your inevitable "get the last word" post so you can get on with your life. That is what I will be doing.
Perhaps you should refer to the Forum TOS.I have only posted the real objective facts which you casually seem to ignore. Actual verifiable numbers from Acura themselves. Are you saying that those numbers are wrong?
I am not attacking the quality of the TLX nor am I attacking the TL. I'm just calling it based purely on the numbers. They are clearly different cars.
Honestly, I think Acura is a great brand and are some of the best cars I've ever owned. Unfortunately, I just think that some people are truly wishing that this TLX is larger/more spacious than it actually is.
Again it all goes back to the numbers. Anyone can say what they want including the advertising department using subjective terms and those are all fine by me. As I said ones perception of roominess or spaciousness can vary based on the interior design.
However, the actual numbers that Acura themselves have published are irrefutable.
Unless you think Acura is lying...
Last edited by motegi; 07-12-2014 at 04:54 PM.
07-12-2014, 06:58 PM
#62
▒JDM ¥ KING▒
I also feel that Hargett guy is lying. Why would you keep repeating that TLX has this and that from TL and almost never to mention that TLX has this from TSX, talking about interior space primarily?!
It's clear that driver has plenty of space, but when you max out the front seats you eliminate all the space in the back so no family friendly sedan here.
This is typical for this segment 3s, Cs, A4, IS, ATS and Q50.
Saying that TLX is in the CLA and A3 segment is wrong, that's ILX territory but Acura is way behind and has to work hard to be competitive.
Then again, all comes down to seeing the car in person and trying the seats front and back. Hmm...
Wheelbase
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
106.5 / 109.3 / 109.3 / 109.3
Headroom
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
37.6 / 42.6 / 38.4 / 37.6 Front
37.0 / 36.7 / 36.7 / 37.0 Rear
Legroom
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
42.4 / 42.6 / 42.5 / 42.5 Front
34.3 / 34.5?! / 36.2 / 38.5 Rear
Hiproom
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
55.6 / 55.3 / 55.7 / 55.6 Front
54.2 / 54.9 / 54.8 / 54.7 Rear
Shoulder Room
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
57.8 / 57.5 / 58.2 / 58.6 Front
56.1 / 55.4 / 56.2 / 56.5 Rear
It's clear that driver has plenty of space, but when you max out the front seats you eliminate all the space in the back so no family friendly sedan here.
This is typical for this segment 3s, Cs, A4, IS, ATS and Q50.
Saying that TLX is in the CLA and A3 segment is wrong, that's ILX territory but Acura is way behind and has to work hard to be competitive.
Then again, all comes down to seeing the car in person and trying the seats front and back. Hmm...
Wheelbase
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
106.5 / 109.3 / 109.3 / 109.3
Headroom
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
37.6 / 42.6 / 38.4 / 37.6 Front
37.0 / 36.7 / 36.7 / 37.0 Rear
Legroom
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
42.4 / 42.6 / 42.5 / 42.5 Front
34.3 / 34.5?! / 36.2 / 38.5 Rear
Hiproom
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
55.6 / 55.3 / 55.7 / 55.6 Front
54.2 / 54.9 / 54.8 / 54.7 Rear
Shoulder Room
TSX / TLX / TL / Accord
57.8 / 57.5 / 58.2 / 58.6 Front
56.1 / 55.4 / 56.2 / 56.5 Rear
Last edited by MuGen7Modulo; 07-12-2014 at 07:03 PM.
07-13-2014, 12:18 AM
#63
Summer is Coming
Yes your personal attacks are a great benefit to this thread and the forum. Seriously. Perhaps you should refer to the Forum TOS.
I have only posted the real objective facts which you casually seem to ignore. Actual verifiable numbers from Acura themselves. Are you saying that those numbers are wrong?
I am not attacking the quality of the TLX nor am I attacking the TL. I'm just calling it based purely on the numbers. They are clearly different cars.
Honestly, I think Acura is a great brand and are some of the best cars I've ever owned. Unfortunately, I just think that some people are truly wishing that this TLX is larger/more spacious than it actually is.
Again it all goes back to the numbers. Anyone can say what they want including the advertising department using subjective terms and those are all fine by me. As I said ones perception of roominess or spaciousness can vary based on the interior design.
However, the actual numbers that Acura themselves have published are irrefutable.
Unless you think Acura is lying...
Perhaps you should refer to the Forum TOS.I have only posted the real objective facts which you casually seem to ignore. Actual verifiable numbers from Acura themselves. Are you saying that those numbers are wrong?
I am not attacking the quality of the TLX nor am I attacking the TL. I'm just calling it based purely on the numbers. They are clearly different cars.
Honestly, I think Acura is a great brand and are some of the best cars I've ever owned. Unfortunately, I just think that some people are truly wishing that this TLX is larger/more spacious than it actually is.
Again it all goes back to the numbers. Anyone can say what they want including the advertising department using subjective terms and those are all fine by me. As I said ones perception of roominess or spaciousness can vary based on the interior design.
However, the actual numbers that Acura themselves have published are irrefutable.
Unless you think Acura is lying...
07-13-2014, 01:02 AM
#64
cost is not droped because it is smaller but lower quality. It lost DWB suspension, cheapen the rims, lack of chrome, thinner leather seats.
TSX was the best car Acura produced.
0-60 mph in 5.9 sec. 0-100mph in 14.4 second for V6. that car need transmission/engine/electronics upgrade. otherwise it is same interior size but shorter turn radius than TLX.
TLX is just enlarge ILX which is down market design and less muscular vehicle.
TSX was the best car Acura produced.
0-60 mph in 5.9 sec. 0-100mph in 14.4 second for V6. that car need transmission/engine/electronics upgrade. otherwise it is same interior size but shorter turn radius than TLX.
TLX is just enlarge ILX which is down market design and less muscular vehicle.
07-13-2014, 01:22 AM
#65
10th Gear
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accord V6 and TSX specs to compare
My username is because I have a 2004 EXV6 Accord and 2006 TSX AT, which I was comparing in a thread way-back-when. To swap my TSX would take a very good car; it's been perfect-no repairs, so I'll have to have a close look at the TLX when I can actually drive one and read some reviews.
The TL is built on the Accord platform. My comments on the TL-TLX specs are these: 1) My TSX is a few pounds HEAVIER than my Accord! 2) The TLX i4 is 3494 lbs with Tech.- 144 lbs heavier than my TSX, with 1 more HP and 18 lbs more torque, which should handle the xtra weight. The performance gains would then come from the 8 spd tranny vs. my 5 spd. 3) My TSX tires are 215/50/17, so the TLX will have a larger wheel diameter at 225/55/17. 4) my EPA for the TSX is 10.5/7.0.
If the TLX is faster, quieter, and handles as well as mine I'd likely bite in a year or so, and it'd be the i4 Tech the way I see it right now. BUT I need to see it, drive it, and hear from others about their reactions.
The TL is built on the Accord platform. My comments on the TL-TLX specs are these: 1) My TSX is a few pounds HEAVIER than my Accord! 2) The TLX i4 is 3494 lbs with Tech.- 144 lbs heavier than my TSX, with 1 more HP and 18 lbs more torque, which should handle the xtra weight. The performance gains would then come from the 8 spd tranny vs. my 5 spd. 3) My TSX tires are 215/50/17, so the TLX will have a larger wheel diameter at 225/55/17. 4) my EPA for the TSX is 10.5/7.0.
If the TLX is faster, quieter, and handles as well as mine I'd likely bite in a year or so, and it'd be the i4 Tech the way I see it right now. BUT I need to see it, drive it, and hear from others about their reactions.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
prox
5G TLX Problems & Fixes
6
09-01-2015 02:03 AM
