nist7

True....if you want to buy new. Other way is to just wait 6-8yrs and buy it for 20% of the msrp!

CoquiTSX

+1. Provide the advance package for the I4 and it probably would get more buyers increasing CAFE average for Acura. This could allow for a higher performance version of the TLX with lower mpgs for those who want more power.

atl7

I'm not comparing the fusion to the TLX. Turbo or not, the car can still be performance oriented. My 2010 TL AWD is fairly aggressive whereas my TLX V6 is not. The cars have almost the same power but because of the way they're setup they feel very different. Given the numbers on the fusion sport, this is clearly the performance oriented version.

sopmodm14

i'm worried also. alot of mainstream cars like the fusion are targeted to battle camry/accord/impala/malibu etc

for me, my next vehicle has to come w/ AWD and NAV *(looking at pre-owned 4G TL, fusion titanium, or TLX-AWD_)

this bundle pretty much goes down to price, and the fusion has been growing on me

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

At 325hp, that's also more than 335i, IS350, IS350, and ATS 3.6.

I'm guessing the Fusion sport was needed to compete with the likes of Accord V6, Camry V6, and Altima V6. The current Fusion 2.0T is rated at 240hp/270lbft, but it's also at 3750lb partly due to its AWD system. When you look at its acceleration figures, it's barely faster than the Accord I4 CVT. In fact, the Accord's 1/4 mile trap speed is superior. Also note how the Fusion is faster for 0-60mph, but is slower for 0-100mph. These figures suggest the Accord has a weak launch (because of CVT), but would eventually catch up and pass the Fusion.

The Accord V6 (and other Japanese V6 sedans) are simply in another league in terms of straight line performance compared to the Fusion 2.0T. I think the Fusion Sport 2.7T should eliminate that performance gap, and may even be a bit faster.

mapleloaf

Interesting and valid points. However, not to be a wet blanket, there is also another side to this discussion. There is a fair bit of research that shows a strong correlation between speed and accident risk. There is also some research and anecdotal information that suggests that drivers with powerful engines will ultimately use that power and drive faster at least some of the time. I also came across an interesting article online in Everyday Driver entitled "Horsepower Corrupts" that addresses the "obsession" with bigger and bigger engines.

Everyday Driver

BEAR-AvHistory

Yeah the safety guys love the speed kills thing. Problem is speed limits are up across the board, miles driven per year are up off the wall & deaths per mile driven are way way down.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...hs_per_VMT.png

Gross number of traffic fatalities 32,479 in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949).

Samples

1930 31,204
1940 32,914
1950 33,186
1960 36,399
1970 52,627
1980 51,091
1990 44,599
2000 41,945
2010 32,999

Remember the 55MPH national limit to save gas, It does not look like going slow saved lives. So much for the correlation. What kills are drunk drivers which the various local agencies will not seriously police because it will kill local restaurants bars etc.

Think the insurance industry would be thrilled if we paid the preimums & never drove. My biggest fear on the road is people who drive scared.

CheeseyPoofs McNut

Interesting story - thanks for the link. I completely agree. It's funny as any car enthusiast will turn their nose down at a TLX I4 but when I stomp on it I think "man - this thing is plenty quick."

I won't deny a 500hp Vette wouldn't be great to have in the garage (actually I'd rather have a Cayman with less HP) but (to the point in the story) I would hardly ever get to really enjoy it for what it is. So beyond impressing my Buick driving neighbors and boosting my self esteem (actually just bought a new MontBlanc so I'm covered there for a while!) I can't see the point.

youngTL

Because cars are safer now. Getting in the same crash kills us less often.

What's REALLY dangerous are distracted drivers.

BEAR-AvHistory

Agree, but safer cars enable increased safe speeds. The carnage projected by the safety council & insurance companies when the move to can the double nickel debate was in full swing never happened.

Here the interstate are generally 70mph with general traffic flow leveled out at 80mph. Minimum speed limits in 70/65mph zones is 45MPH & 40mph in 60mph.

Distracted drivers are a problem but the whole driver license testing system, drive around the parking lot or block without killing the tester, sucks.

Don't know how many of you lived long term in Europe but most of the US drivers testing for local UK licenses fail one or more times in there tests.

brian6speed

iTrader: (5)

But it is a Ford. People that buy new Acura's don't care about performance. If they did they'd never buy new Acura.

The material and build quality of my Ford Focus ST is a joke compared to my 13 year old Acura CL.

The problem is people buy cars based on specs on a piece of paper instead of actually driving and inspecting car.

On paper Johnny Football should be best qb in NFL haha.

Ford is great at cost and corner cutting. They cheap out on parts that new buyers would never think about till after they buy car and car is at dealership for warranty work a lot.

Same concept as buying goods made in China.

You can also tell my Ford focus was built in murica by lazy no skilled workers who take no pride in their jobs. Body gaps are awful(hatch was so badly aligned it wouldn't close properly and chipped paint. Hood is same issue), door panels have shims sticking out from factory to avoid rattles. Even plastic Ford uses is cheaper. Had to replace axles in first year. Car is also worst rattle box I've ever sat in.

Acura/Honda used to build great material and build quality cars in 80's and 90s. They suck now and cost cut more.

Cost cutting and using cheaper materials is way to go from a manufacturer like Ford. Customers are too stupid to notice and just see a lower sticker price. Then after purchase they complain because car always needs service.

A car with roll cage, race harness, and racing seats will always be safer than bandage fix airbags.

Nedmundo

^^I'm not sure Acura buyers are completely uninterested in performance, but I'll agree Acura has lost its performance cred in recent years.

And man are you right about Ford's poor panel fitment and related issues! My dad just bought a 2016 C-Max, and the hatch isn't aligned properly, among other things. He gave us his 2010 Fusion, which seems good in this respect, but I've seen some grisly stuff over on the Focus ST forum and elsewhere. It's a real shame, because Ford seems to be getting the hard stuff right, like chassis dynamics, and it's obviously NOT about American workers because U.S.-built cars from Honda and others don't have these problems. It's a systemic problem at Ford for which, IMO, there is absolutely no excuse, and management should have addressed it a long time ago.

Despite this, I still want a Focus ST myself. Great cars IMO.

alpha0

Bmw 5 series - 300hp, Benz E350- 302hp, lexus gs - 307 hp or so...there are many vehicls with very good sales numbers will have less hp than this fusion...

mapleloaf

Safer cars may enable increased safe speeds - IF fully equipped with collision avoidance features. Otherwise, it means more collisions, albeit with fewer fatalities. You point out that our driver licensing criteria in North America are somewhat lax, which reinforces my concern that too many poor drivers purchase fast cars that they cannot drive properly. They drink the cool aid that they need a performance car to match their performance driving skills….that don't exist. Rather, many of them end up driving like AHs.

AS government has finally established fuel economy requirements, albeit fleet based, perhaps it's time to reasonably limit the HP available to the average class of license. As more cars are coming out with nanny settings for speed and stereo volume for teenagers, for example, perhaps some reasonable limits on engine sizes would create some incentive for manufacturers to more creatively differentiate their products (quality, features, fuel economy, ride, etc) rather than another mindless bump in engine power. As has been pointed out, there are lots of great performance cars that have less than 300 hp.

BEAR-AvHistory

You can't fix stupid no matter how much you limit horsepower. Why stop at 300; if that s good 200 will be better or maybe drop it down to 20 like a garden tractor. But then dummies fall off or over turn those too. How about going back to 1 horsepower & use the real thing?

Teens getting in over their heads due to lack of experience & over active testosterone goes back to the first people to develop horseback riding.

Personally I am up to here with the government trying to save me from myself by regulating everything they can reach into. Love the don't stick your hands into the circular saw till its stopped spinning warnings.

Maybe less nannies, warnings & lawyers will cut the gene pool & self-limit the perceived need to all this extra government over watch.

We are turning into a very risk adverse society & that type of society would have kept us safe in our caves. I enjoy flying aerobatics & driving quick cars. There are risks involved but they can be managed by not being stupid in how far you extend yourself.

Extended as far as I could on the job instead of just keeping my head down. Had a good life & will finish in a lot better place then I started out in.

300hp great performance cars? Good performance yes with turbos to boost torque; great Nah. Lets just agree to disagree on the subject.

wreak

You can't be serious! What are you doing on a car enthusiast forum

TacoBello

I don't expect the TLX to have class leading power- I don't think it's necessary. But I do think that Acura needs to stay competitive with the power they put down. It seems all of their direct and indirect competitors are trending upwards with power, but not Acura.

Back in the day, the 254hp the 3G TL put down was good. It wasn't class leading, but it was good. Today, being under 300hp for a semi luxury car, touted as a performance sedan by the manufacturer itself, isn't exactly keeping up.

BEAR-AvHistory

Speaking of government sticking its face into everything they think they can make a buck (tax) on I got a notice today from the FAA that under a brand new regulation I have to register my R/C aircraft by 19Feb2016.

Getting a big break. Just me for $5 & not each individual aircraft, about 23 right now. Interesting that we were specifically exempted under the bill regulating unmanned aircraft that congress passed saying aircraft up to 55lbs did not have register. MY biggest planes are in the 40/45lb class.

More unelected bureaucrats screwing over the population with BS regulation.

SayItAintTom

Nice base specs and all.. but i wanna see how well it can be modded and i wanna see its 0-60.

Im guessing it offers all performance and no luxury?

Cus id still choose my 335i over it anyday.. especially considering how easily i got to 450bhp.

BeerManMike

Will that 35hp help you beat that pesky 20yr old in his supped up honda off the line at the red light on your daily commute? Or will going from 290 to 325 help you merge better onto the highway?

wreak

My take on the HP thing is that all the advertising with the TLX has been about framing the car as a "thrilling" sports sedan. The car doesn't quite meet that criteria if you ask me, the car is a decent package but it's almost like the engineers and the marketing team aren't communicating. Acura could fix the issue so easily, offer all models with an optional Type-S package, upgraded tires, upgraded brakes, sportier suspension, thicker steering wheel, skirt package, a bump in HP, and some badges. Charge whatever the hell you need to for the sport package just make it available!

TacoBello

True, but I'd be shocked if they ever pushed the power much past 305hp, even in Type S guise. They've never done it before. I think it's the FWD layout that's holding them back. Yes, it can easily be done, but Honda is and always has been a conservative company for the most part and they value safety above anything else.

Yes, I know the new CTR is pushing 306hp to the front wheels, but the TLX is in a totally different realm then that car and the suspension geometry was specifically designed to reduce torque steer, etc. I'm not sure the same was done for the TLX.

Would I like to see a TLX Type S? Absolutely. I'd LOVE to see them driving around town. And like you said, it really wouldn't take that much for them to do it. Here's to hoping it eventually happens!

wreak

I don't think putting down 325hp with sh-awd would be an issue at all, if they released a type-s model it would only be available as an sh-awd model anyway.

TacoBello

Hmmm... true, true. I forgot about that. It's definitely doable. I'd stop whining about Acura's "it's that kind of thrill" marketing if they did release such a car. I just feel the NSX is too far out of reach for too many people.

BEAR-AvHistory

Everybody keeps talking about horsepower. IMHO there is way to much emphasis on what in reality is just an advertising line. Lots of 300BHP cars were mentioned above but the only 4 second one is the BMW.

Torque is what gets you moving & torque down low is the key factor in the 0-60 number generation. In a 1/4 mile race WHP comes into effect in the second 1/8 mile.

If you look at any 14 second or better cars 1/4 mile performance breakdown the first 1/8 mile is where most of the speed is generated. Typically for a street car in that class you are looking at a gain of only 20/24mph over the second 1/8 mile.

One of my posted runs with the 335is listed 1/8 mile 90mph in 8 seconds & 1/4 mile 114mph in 12.5 seconds. Second half took 4.5 seconds to complete but only gained 24mph. In the second half the engines torque has peaked & is on its way down as HP increases & you are all out of major gear multiplication giving a big assist.

The N/A cars at 300BHP just don't have the torque at very low RPM to get them moving quickly. This is why the TLX really needs a turbo system on the V6 if they want to really put the thrill back in the car.

As an aside, those 300hp car have very good sales in spite of the 300hp because they are perceived as premium cars with the cache of the most recognized upscale automobile brand names.

Name association, say premium car & most people with come back with one or more of the Lexus, MB, BMW & now working its way in Audi brand names.

SayItAintTom

Exactly.

All these cars with 300+ hp yet the 335i is still much faster than them.

I really wanna see the 0-60 of this new Fusion. It better be in the 4s, low 5 maybe?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Hmm, a lot of these 300hp+ sedans in the segment are in the 4's for 0-60:
C400: 4.7s
2015 Mercedes-Benz C400 4MATIC Test ? Review ? Car and Driver

Q50S: 4.9s
2014 Infiniti Q50S 3.7 Test ? Review ? Car and Driver

The Q50 is doing that despite being NA. The thing is, the likes of C400 and especially the 335i are underrated from the factory. They make 280-300whp.

The RLX FWD was dyno'ed at 250-260whp (with 6AT) on a Dynojet. The TLX is rated 20hp less, so it's probably at 240whp. That's why the TLX isn't anywhere near as fast as a 335i or C400.

KeithL

Fully agree. My A6 was far heavier than my TLX, but the super charger made the thing feel like a beast off the line because all that torque was down low in the RPM band. Was feeaking awesome accelerating in that car. Never enjoyed coming off red lights so much. 26 months and 19K miles and I enjoyed every day driving that car and how it accelerated.

BEAR-AvHistory

You just changed the rules of the game. 455bhp & 435BHP Camaro & Mustangs with an attractive MSRP will also get there in the 4 second range but that's not what we have been talking about.

2996 cc
Power: 329 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 354 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm
Twin Turbo

3696 cc
Power: 328 hp @ 7000 rpm
Torque: 269 lb-ft @ 5200 rpm

New 2016 BMW
2998 cc
Power: 320 hp @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 330 lb-ft @ 1380 rpm

Thing neither the C400 or Q-50 are factory rated at 300BHP. The 2016 335/340 is now uprated to 320BHP but the old version was rated at 300. FWIW the new engine is materially more powerful than the old one. The N/A Q-50 does a credible job on horsepower but it is 700CC's bigger than the MB or BMW engines. Even though its almost a liter bigger its still significantly down on torque compared to the smaller MB, BMW turbos.

So the point was/is neither the MB or Q were 300bhp engines at 328/329 rated BHP. The older N-54/N-55 BMW engine was rated 300BHP/300FTLBS.

The cars actually listed in ALPHA0's post Bmw 5 series - 300hp, Benz E350- 302hp, lexus gs - 307 hp or so are not 4 second cars. So the point still stands the 300BHP cars were not 4 second cars & did not compete with the 335 in performance.

My two N-55's are rated at 135is old factory performance kit 320BHP/315FTLBS & the 435 with the new factory performance kit 342BHP/335FTLBS. So a factory installed fully warrantied upgrade path was available to the 335. A similar package will be released in the fall for the 340.

youngTL

Someone dyno'd a TLX V6 FWD for a baseline before doing any mods. From this thread:

https://acurazine.com/forums/perform...v6-pcd-917797/

Here's the plot.



He got 265.89 hp and 251.23 lb-ft of torque at the wheels. Definitely higher than the 240 hp you were estimating. I bet you the RLX has more drivetrain losses. The 9AT actually has very little drivetrain loss. Some people have run 0-60 in the TLX at 5.4 sec, some get 5.7 sec. I think it depends a lot on conditions. But it's down compared to the 340i (it's no longer the 335i) and the C450 (no longer the C400) because of the turbo in those cars giving more torque. But it's certainly faster than a 328i, which it's priced similarly to. The 340i is almost $12k more money in Canada, similarly equipped, while the C450 is $18k more. The C450 is also 362 hp, which is a LOT more power.

BEAR-AvHistory

On the same brand dyno in early testing the 340's are looking like 330WHP/340FTLBS so as usual BMW is under rating them. 15% loss puts them in the 380BHP range.

The early drag strip tests are looking like 4.4 0-60 & 13.0 for the 1/4.

My 335is was dynode a number of time on the same brand DynoJet @ 319/321WHP stock against a BMW 320BPH rating. It was under rated as at Charlotte it ran the same 1/4 mile times consistently 13.0/13.2 - 0-60 was unknown.

JJones91

I mean if we really want to compare apples to apples....
The new MKZ is more impressive in performance and luxury.
400hp/400tq.
http://m.lincoln.com/2017-mkz/

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Think you misunderstood my point, if so, my bad for being not clear.

My point again is that, even though tthe 335i is rated at 300hp, it's well underrated, meaning its rating doesn't really mean much.

You seem to agree that 335i's are under rated too in your above post.

Thanks for the plots and actual figures. Those are some respectable numbers. I'd believe that since C/D was able to get 103mph trap speed, which seems to align with 265whp at 3600lb.

But for sure, even at 265whp, it's still down from 300whp (or even 330whp based on bear's #), hence it's not as fast as a 335i/340i, but more than enough to be comfortably faster than a 328i.

gokhanturk

If he got 5.4 secs 0-60 on a v6 FWD i wonder what a v6 SH-AWD would get.

JJones91

Depends on if it got wheelspin and if so how much. SH-AWD will gain you traction but you also lose alot more power to the wheels as opposed to FWD.

youngTL

SH-AWD has been clocked anywhere between 5.4 and 5.7, depending on conditions. The SH-AWD has a much more consistent launch though.

Snake Plissken

The difference is they are putting the 2.7L V6 Ecoboost TWIN-TURBO engine.

You throw Twin-Turbo on the Honda V6 and you would EASILY get 400 hp out of that beauty.

So in reality it isn't a "real" 325hp.


Also when you go on youtube and watch real world tests on those Ecoboost engines, they do not get anywhere near what they claim in MPG and other supposive capabilities. The Fast Lane Truck and Fast Lane Car have some great videos on those engines and vehicles.

JJones91

What exactly isn't real about it? That manufacturers are using alternatives to make more power? Every brand has their way of making power. Sure IF the Honda had a twin turbo v6 it COULD see 400hp depending on the size of turbos it would use, however we are living in the real world where Honda does not offer that and Ford does. Just because the Honda doesn't have a turbo v6 doesn't make it an unfair comparison. It's all about the car class..

More air = more power.
So actually yes it is "real" 325hp. That's like saying using nitrous oxide isn't a power adder and it's cheating in racing.

JJones91

Also you're comparing a small 2.7L Ecoboost to what a 3.5L V6?
So it's unfair for Ford to use a smaller displacement and use turbos to produce the same amount of power you'd see from today's 3.0L V6s?

I mean if you really want to try and make it sound like FoMoCo is "cheating" you could compare to the 3.0L EcoBoost Lincoln just put in their new 2017 MKZ (Fusion) that makes 400+hp.
Turbos are a new way for car brands to produce more power with less displacement and without having to sacrifice a huge loss in fuel economy..

BEAR-AvHistory

I don't think it would be that "easy". You don't just throw on a couple of turbos & have an engine live long term.

Unless the current engine was designed to be boosted at some point in its development it would not be reliable at the boost level required to get it to 400HP. It takes some heavy duty parts to support that level of boost.

More boost = more expensive engine, transmission, axles & final drive

My 3.0 was running 18.5PSI to get 410WHP on 96.5 octane gas. With more displacement the Honda engine would use less boost but it would not be a nominal amount.