ATLPatrick

Not the best review, if you read their initial reviews they loved it. I'm wandering what happened? I completely disagree with much of what they said, sounds to me like this editor has some other issue with Acura as a brand as a whole!

2015 Acura TLX 2.4L Test ? Review ? Car and Driver

ostrich

This is bizarre! If you read the November 2014 issue of Car and Driver, they gave the TLX a totally glowing review! Then you have this particular writer who produced this rather unflattering review of the TLX... OK, he does have a good point about the interior, but it was overall rather unfair.

The only good thing is the 0-60 time of 6.8 sec. That is more consistent with what I was expecting

saturno_v

About C&D turning their opinion on a dime is nothing new...their first review of the 4G TL was extremely good, even on the styling aspect (the more we look at the TL, the more we like the new styling language, more or less that is what they said)...later on the car did become sort of "ugly" for them.


So we finally start to see some hard number....even with the new wunder DCT and the supposedly largely improved DI engine, acceleration is barely adequate for the power and the lack of turbocharger...0-60 in 6.8, the old 6 speed manual 2009 TSX did it in 6.7 and was able to clear the 1/4 mile one tenth faster as well.....the new Accord manual beat it too with 17 less horses.

Modest braking and skidpad performance....ok guys can we say it?? It kind of sucks....so far the TLX, as I said it before, can play just with the semi-premium midsize sedans...this C&D test matches almost perfectly my personal road test (and I drove a V6)

saturno_v

Again, nothing new...they did exactly the same with the 4G TL....glowing initial review and then it went downhill fast...but at least they could not ignore the excellent dynamic numbers (braking, chassis and handling)


The TLX, so far, does not seem to have this saving grace....

ostrich

Looks like Consumer Report will have a review of the TLX 2.4 and SH-AWD coming up sooon:

Talking Cars Video Podcast Episode 50 | Reader Questions

By their initial discussion, the reviews will probably be quite favourable.

SSFTSX

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.

vbx

So the Manual Accord is faster and it doesn't have sports mode. haha

saturno_v

The 320i beats the TSX up to the 1/4 mile and with 26 less HP...and it has a traditional torque converter automatic not a DCT.

Published fuel consumption is basically identical.

Shame for Acura for selling the car with lousy tires....fact is it is slower than the manual Accord and the old TSX by these tests.

Now we need to see the numbers for the V6 and SH-AWD to put the final nail in the coffin or having some miraculous redemption....so far the car is a dog pure and simple...

ATLPatrick

Just to give you a bit of info, Car and Driver had a 2009 TSX 6 speed in their test fleet, new it achieved 0-60 in 7.0, putting it behind the TLX. Here is the link to that car.

2009 Acura TSX - Long-Term Road Test - Car Reviews - Car and Driver

Also as far as an actual apples to apples comparison (auto to auto), Car and Driver didnt test an auto TSX I4 sedan from what I can tell but they did the wagon, which only weighed slightly more than the sedan, and with the same engine and trans it pulled an 8.1 0-60, again much slower than the I4 TLX. Here is the link to that test.

2011 Acura TSX Sport Wagon Test ? Review ? Car and Driver

And yes I do know their very first road test on a 6 speed TSX pulled a 6.7 0-60, not really sure how when all of their previous tests show it as slower. Just thought you might like to view a different set of numbers.

ATLPatrick

Also if you really want to put the BMW 320i into this, yes it does have 26 less horsepower, but it also has 18 more torque than TLX and at a lower RPM, plus it weighs a few hundred pounds less than base TLX. But i don't even see how its a competitor to the base TLX when it doesn't even come standard with HID's much less LED's, no power seats, no premium sound, no lumbar support, no sunroof, no heat seats, and no rear view camera. Optioned even to match a base model TLX the 320i would cost somewhere just above $40,000!! For that screw a 320i, you could be in a Tech V6 TLX, or even BMW's own 328i!

saturno_v

A little bit of cherry picking here...that TSX Wagon auto it is heavier (not much but it is) and the auto transmission was the dinosaur, notoriously inefficient, 5 speed auto

A 8 speed DCT should be significantly faster than a 6 speed manual transmission...when equipped with DCT the Germans put out very impressive numbers compared to their engine output.

jeich182

Hmm that was hardly a glowing review from C/D. Almost seems to contradict their first drive impressions. I wonder if it's the placebo effect? The car was a nice and satisfying drive by itself but maybe now seeing their instrumented readings and doing some spec. sheet racing of their own is making them forget that?

The I4 acceleration numbers don't surprise me in the least. That's not to say they're bad because they aren't, but it weighs what the TSX did and barely has more power.

We all know all TLX have tires that are mediocre [at best] so the handling is what it is. The more I drive my V6 the more I'm finding it can out-corner my old TSX if I'm careful with transitions, so that's a good thing and I know the smooth powerful acceleration is there to help make up any deficiency to its peers.

Interior: I'm not sure what they're saying. For an Acura its very nice and I rode in a friend's 2015 M4 over the weekend (incredible beast of a car) and my opinion from NYIAS was validated, the climate knobs, vents, and some other switchgear in the 3/4series feel downright cheap in comparison to my Acura, so there is that.

Nedmundo

I have the same thought about the dissonance between C/D's first drive and this review, and I think it's the old test track v. real world distinction. Some cars simply aren't made for the test track but are superb in real world conditions, and the TLX seems to fit this mold. Many Saabs were like this.

As for handling, I thought the I4 TLX was more composed than my 2G TLX, and could be driven at higher speeds with more confidence on back roads. I don't know if it has more actual grip, but it felt more secure.

doogle

I thought the review is pretty fair. I mean for 12k less the accord sport outperforms the TLX 2.4. Acura needs to step up it's game and grow some balls like they used to have.

Stew4HD

If "performance" was the only factor, I'd agree with you but it isn't. Other than the Type S, was Acura ever really about performance over luxury? I have always thought of it as more of an upscale car over it's Honda counterparts... it still is.

If you want only performance (horsepower/torque/top end/light to light), why look at the TLX? There are cars out there that fit that bill.. WRX.. cars like that...

SSFTSX

again with different set of tires. put 225/55 long tread on BMW 320i and it wont beat it.
real world figures are not
Accord is 200lbs lighter. it isn't slower than TSX.
its V6 will still outperform BMW 328i for lesser price and very competitive with 335i at higher speed. it need right set of tires.

JT4

Just read this review last night and like most said it was a little confusing when compared to their initial impression of the car.

While I understand that some people like to see track numbers, what do they really mean to most of us.

I feel that anyone who reviews a vehicle should have to spend at least 4-5 days in it under real world conditions before writing anything.

What about real world reviews based on bumper to bumper traffic, how the a/c works idling in traffic during a commute, how fast it heats up in the winter, how it isolates you from the outside world during your long commute to and from work etc, etc.

Yeah, test numbers are a great indication of how the vehicle performs, and we should review them. I just think that some of these reviewers put too much into how it performs on the track vs. the real world. And in all fairness how many people are "tracking" their TLX's..

jeich182

A coworker who has owned four Infiniti Gs in a row has a SH-AWD TLX sitting down at the local dealer which he will pick up next week. He said Infiniti lost its way with the last G37 and Q50, that they tried too hard to beat BMW and took the comfort out of the car. So it's not all about agonizing over tenths of a second or performance differences that are nearly impossible for us to exploit on public roads. We concentrate so hard on that and lose sight of the comfort/luxury aspect which is an important part of the package.

saturno_v

It would be interesting to see some test specifically on that rather than just a footnote on observed fuel consumption. However, I give it that.

Accord is lighter and less powerful, the old TSX did beat it, even by the smallest marking, on a 6 speed manual.....again the TLX has a dual clutch transmission which should give it a clear advantage.

Remain to be seen...however ao far the car disappoints not only on acceleration numbers....it is a middle of the pack at best. The traditional Acura high value proposition is simply not there IMHO. It has to rely on electronic gizmos and accessories to be competitive in price...at that point you can save even more money buying a fully loaded Ford Fusion Titanium which parallel park by itself if you want gizmos.....

doogle

I just think that a car at this price point should have a certain level of performance that I feel is missing in this car. Don't get me wrong I love the 2.4L as I also have a 2013 Civic Si with this motor, but that car is considerably lighter.

saturno_v

That is the problem...that engine shines in lighter cars but without a lot of low end torque it suffers a lot when the weight increases...

CARLOS10

am i Nostradamus ??? I made that prediction from the initial favorable reports about the 2.4. I predict the second test will trash the 2.4 . Was i wrong ???.

CARLOS10

26/09/2014 I open a threads IS THE TLX FOLLOWING THE SAME PATH.
It only generated 11 responses , while a threads about a floor math or a
C/D charge produce 80 response.
The threads describe exactly this C/D review , and the worst is coming .
Firs test was to trash the v6 models, now trash the 2.4. Next forget about the TLX.

SSFTSX

that's good you admit fuel economic.


TSX 6MT was also lighter by 150lbs and it does not have 55 x-section tire. TLX is also wider car and still at higher speeds it beat TSX. dual clutch cant overcome 6MT of Honda when its lighter weight. can ILX 6MT beat Civic Si despite similar weight and Si having larger wheels. the answer is No.


Ford quality/reliability/fuel economic/aerodynamics and NVH levels are joke. they should not even be consider. Ford fusion completely fall apart above 100mph. takes more than 10 seconds just to go from 100 to 110mphs.

dysonlu

Some people like to play that boyish pissing game. To each his own.

While to me it is fun to see the numbers, it's laughable to be anal about one or two tenths of a second, which I figure is very well within the margin of error of the nature of such tests.

As for the review itself, it wasn't that negative -- I was expecting worse. But I can't take too seriously "reviews" that are this short, with rather vague statements like "The TLX doesn’t come close to the refined vibe offered by the BMW 3-series and the new Mercedes-Benz C-class." (How about an in-depth apples-to-apples comparison of the interior?)

saturno_v

I'm not admitting...I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, I want to see some detailed real life fuel consumption numbers like in a long term test.


The TSX is 100 lbs lighter than TLX (as per test specs).....2 less gears, 5 less HP and 10 less ft/lb of torque.....again, if the tires are responsible, shame on Acura for putting such tires in that car.

Fusion is very aerodynamic, it has 10 more cubic feet of passenger volume, 3 cubic feet more of cargo volume and it has more legroom, both front and rear (4 inches more at the back).
Styling is more original and appealing (for me).
I would take a Fusion 2.0. Ecoboost over this, no question about it. True, Ford reliability is not on par, but I was judging on the car merits alone....Honda cannot rely only on reliability nowadays.

a77

I for one am very pleased by the 6.8 number which makes a mockery of Motorweek. All the rst of the review says is that it is woree than an Accord Sport on a track. Which on all levels is absurd. The Accord has wider lower profile michelins and stiffer springing than the TLX. Change the rubber and it would be next to identical. The extra TLX power advantage being cancelled by more weight. But but but..the TLx is so much quieter, more comfortable and better equipped, and this totally vindicates its higher price, And the Accord's interior is so low rent in comparison. Sure the sport is brilliant value but to compare them is absurd. This car competes with the IS250 primarily, but also the c class, A4 and 320 these are Acura's stated 2.4 rivals. The IS it trounces in performance and in what you get for the money. The others it is simply down to, again, features for the money, The germans do not compete. And will cost more to run. Most of the commenters after the article are equally dismissive.

It also absurd for car And driver to diss a 6.8 time. How can they ever have expected faster from this power to weight ratio. It trounces the old auto.

Sure I have bought one and am bound to be defensive. But I knew within seconds of driving this is no track car. But it is superbly set up for driving on real roads, spiritedly when asked. It's also about 3db quieter, according to c and d's measurements - which arguably is half the noise...(to achieve a 3db increase in speaker volume you need twice the electrical output). Subjectively it is worlds apart. Its also far quieter than the IS according to their numbers.

It says it has puddle lights in the mirrors. Canadian ones don't afaik. But we do get the heated steering wheel and standard remote, which they didn't mention.

a77

Comparing a Fusion is like comparing a Chrysler 200. I have driven the Fusion, we always have them on our used lot, we buy them dirt cheap ex rental. And sell them dirt cheap. Used they are a great buy. I think it looks nicer than the TLX too. So does the Accord. But it will go wrong. And the Acura feels much more special. Just does. The Lincoln should be the Acura's rival, but it singularly fails.

At a recent Fiesta, Fit, Note, Accent driving event I participated the Fiesta was by far the nicest driving car, and the best looking inside and out IMHO. But I know it will go wrong (also has no space but that's another issue).

saturno_v

How can they expect it?? Audi A4 2.0 T, 211 horses, 3657 curb weight, 0-60 in 5.6 sec, 1/4 mile in 14.4 and a regular torque converter auto...in 2012

2012 BMW 328i vs. 2012 Audi A4 2.0T, 2012 Infiniti G25, 2012 Mercedes-Benz C250 Sport, 2012 Volvo S60 T6 AWD Comparison Tests - Page 5 - Car and Driver


The only thing I do not agree on this C&D road test is their usual ever present stroking of BMW when the author commented on the interiors...the 3 Series cabin material quality is downright mediocre in my opinion and the TLX fares better.

CARLOS10

Some reading between lines.
If you insert DEJA VU , you are killing the car. How many Hyundai or BMW review use the
word DEJA VU ????.
Name the Accord all test long. It look like the test is a comparison Accord VS TLX.
Instead, if a magazine is testing the Accord , they will never say its copy of a TLX , why
car magazine treat Honda/Acura buyer like fools ???
LACKLUSTER TRACK PERFORMANCE. Is well know, all Acura test involve extensive track test, others brand are town drive .

saturno_v

The ones you get from rental fleets are bare bone ones...set a foot inside a Titanium....

The Lincoln MKZ, for all its faults, it has a ton of road presence compared to the TLX....the styling is just gorgeous and original.


Feel "special" it's just what this TLX does not have....

CheeseyPoofs McNut

The test is fair enough.

It's silly to compare it to the Accord Sport though. Of course the Sport is a better value - a two year old Accord Sport is an even better value! Heck - a two year old Civic is probably an even better value! A super-dooper value in fact!!

In fact a new Vette for 60 grand will give you great performance but for 38 grand less you can get an MT Accord Sport that is a lot of fun to drive so the Sport wins that value comparo too!

Anyways - the Motorweek zero to sixty debacle can now be put to bed for good and we can focus on skidpad and braking numbers!

Stew4HD

60-0 matters to .. umm.. a lot of people?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The A4 has 258lbft of torque and AWD. That's the perfect combo for hard launches and ultra quick 0-60mph time and 1/4 mile ET. It's also a pretty well known fact that Audi, along with BMW, are seriously underrating some of their engines.

When you look at the 5-60mph rolling start at 7.2s and 1/4 mile trap speed at 95mph, they certainly don't look as fast, don't you agree? That 5-60mph is 0.1s faster than the TLX, and that trap speed is 2mph faster.

Here are some more comparison numbers for reference:

0-60mph comparison:
C300: 6.1s
A4 2.0T: 6.4s
320i: 6.7s
TLX 2.4: 6.8s
ATS 2.5: 7.4s
IS250 AWD: 7.8s

1/4 mile ET comparison:
C300: 14.6s
A4 2.0T: 15s
320i: 15.1s
TLX 2.4: 15.4s
ATS 2.5: 15.6s
IS250 AWD: 16.1s

1/4 mile trap speeds
C300: 96mph
A4 2.0T: 94mph
TLX 2.4: 93mph
320i: 92mph
ATS 2.5: 90mph
IS250 AWD: 87mph

5-60mph rolling start:
C300: 7.1s
A4 2.0T: 7.2s
TLX 2.4: 7.3s
ATS 2.5: 7.6s
320i: 7.7s
IS250 AWD: 8.3s

The TLX doesn't look that bad eh? The 320i is faster thanks to its RWD layout and extra torque, which makes launch hard much more effective. But once the car gets going, the TLX is right up there, if not faster.

Links for the above numbers:
2013 Cadillac ATS 2.5L Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2013 BMW 320i Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2015 Mercedes-Benz C300 4MATIC Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...0t-quattro.pdf
2014 Lexus IS250 F Sport AWD Test ? Review ? Car and Driver

Mr Hyde

A DCT does not guarantee performance above a manual; (don't forget that this one is also coupled to a torque converter for further refinement). Honda's designs were heavily weighted towards fuel economy as well whereas for BMW, Porsche, and Audi, the DCT's were primarily, and initially designed around their performance halo models.

The same for DI. In my Audi, it exists purely for its performance benefit; in these cars, it was purely for economy.

Yes the manual Accord is faster. I'm not sure why people are amazed that a manual car can out accelerate one with a Torque Converter equipped DCT that is hundreds of pounds heavier.

Do you understand what the sport mode is? It software that controls A/T shift logic, and steering feel. Adding those to the manual Accord would do what exactly for its acceleration?

I'll disagree completely. Compared to a 3 series, A4, C class, etc, I see it as a great value. Compare them with similar options, or with similar purchase price, and tell me how much quality is exuded from a base model car with halogen headlights, and unheated vinyl seats. (Versions that no tester will ever see)

The quality, and tech for the price is the high value short game that the Japanese have played since the beginning. The reliability, and resale is their long game. You can compare it to the fusion, but that is not its market class, and how many buyers cross shop them?

You can toss those same features into a Ford Taurus, doesn't make it a high value substitute for a 5 series, A6, or E class either.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

2 different journalist.
2 different results.
one C/D journalist liked it with the initial review.
this C/D journalist obviously didnt like it as much

ggesq

iTrader: (1)

Amen.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I'm not the least bit surprised that the TLX is not quite delivering in instrumented testing. My test drive of it would corroborate many of the same basic shortcomings, which is to say that the car is good, but not great. If you are purely looking at MSRP, then the TLX appears competitive on paper. However, it is so compromised by some poor decisions on Acura's part, especially the I4 models, that it starts to lose that competitive edge the closer you look, especially if performance is a major criteria.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

so, its just mediocre.

CheeseyPoofs McNut

Actually one journalist (who liked it) drove it around on the type of roads you and I drive on.

The second based the review mostly on the results from the test data derived from the day at the track.

They are indeed two different reviews.

In reality what many on this forum are looking for is the head-to-head test with the BMW and Lexus. That will be forthcoming I have no doubt and I will be sure to stop by the local Sams Club to load up on popcorn for that battle