I find myself agreeing with datadr.

 

I just don't fully understand the correlation between exposed exhaust tips and a sporty car. To me it's obviously a matter of personal preference but I don't know why anyone would love everything about a car and not buy it simply because it doesn't show the exhaust holes.

I was a little disappointed the production version didn't have the same sporty look of the prototype and I'm sure it would look sportier if the exhaust tips were integrated into a nice sporty rear end, but I still love the looks of the TLX as is. I would like to see a Type S or some "sport" version as well, but for now I'm extremely satisfied with my version.

As I re-read this, I noticed I used variations of "sporty" alot.

 

You just answered your own question.

 

Well, sorta, I guess. I kinda meant to imply that if the exhaust tips aren't showing it can't possibly be a sporty car, can it? To further that, almost any car can have mods done to it to make it look MORE sporty. That's what I was trying to say. I think I'm in no man's land on this one. I just don't really understand the bashing for the lack of exposed tips. I also think the dealer's attempt at adding them on this car looks horrendous, IMHO!

 

Tradition - going back to the '20's & '30's when high performance cars had exposed full or partial exhaust systems.

Mercedes SSK


Duesenberg SJ Boattail Speedster


1967 Big Block StingRay


1965 427 Cobra


2016 Acura NSX

Its also been a general tradition that the bread & butter cars in a lineup did not get much in the way of exhaust treatments.

 

I've gotten used to now having exhaust tips, it's one less thing to clean...lol

 

The dual exhaust definitely adds style to the car. I wouldn't call the TLX sporty tho

 

Generally in a modern engine running well should not get exhaust tips any dirtier than the rest of the car. Even the 98 pickup has no carbon issues.

 

Gen 4 quads

 

^looks weird and out of place

 

Sorry, but yuck. All those exhausts simply look strange on this car.

 

I don't like the placement of the Quads, as another poster mentioned they look out of place.

 

The wheels on my posted image was Audi A7 wheels.

They just can't make a rear end look complete like they used to:

:P

 

I don't get the whole exhaust debate myself, car looks fine as it is...

 

The muscle car days are to blame for the notion that dual exhaust equates to performance. They've nearly always been exposed in every case. I like them and am okay without them

 

The muscle car days are today.

 

lol... *KNEE SLAPPER*

 

A V6 Acura TLX or RLX will run faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile(low 14s) than pretty much every muscle car of the 1960s. Very few of them were into the 13 second quarter, most running 15s. Even the few that ran 13s, like a 440 cuda only did that on slicks.
A V6 Acura could run past 99% of them with the AC on in relative comfort. .

This is not to suggest that I don't like those cars. I had a 68 Mustang in the late 80s/early 90s until it rusted itself in half and would love to own a late 60s fastback. I used to spend weekends at the drag strip, trying to squeeze an extra tenth out of my race car but the factory cars got faster and faster. Now 12 second factory cars are common as dirt, so I would agree, these are the muscle car days.

 

My friends Tesla P85 does not have any exhaust tips as can be most cars 0-60 include the Dodge Hellcat!

 

How many V6 sedans have the horsepower of a 440 six pack Roadrunner? A Dual quad 426 Hemi 'cuda? A '70 Judge? An Old' 442, '69 Boss 302, '70 Chevelle SS 454?

I guess your (and the other poster) idea of muscle car and mine is entirely different

 

Horsepower in the 1960s was "Gross Horsepower" and that 440 six pack road runner was probably only pushing sub 400hp by today's standards. Not only that, it had no way of getting that power to the pavement. Tire and suspension technology wasn't there. Any number of sport sedans these days would be on its heels or past it. Every AMG built after 2005 would leave the Road Runner driver staring at tail lights.

If you mean you like loud and obnoxious, tire smoking, pollution belching, in your face, unable to corner over 30mph vehicles, then yeah, then I agree, what we have today is nothing like that.

 

Umm, okay. I give up

 

The fuck are you smoking?

the Tesla is an ELECTRIC vehicle which DOES NOT NEED an exhaust.


the HellCat does indeed have exposed exhaust tips.

 

But the Hellcat isn't muscle... only AMGs and V6 sedans are


The Hellcat makes me miss my '72 Challenger

 

actually agree with maltx.

it's funny to see an older v8 try me.

 

I don't see how comparing a 100K$ + sports car fits but okay.

A different time.

 

You have to understand. I spent years at the track. My friends and I all had old muscle cars.

In fact, look here Pro Street Evolution - Hot Rod Magazine

See that 67 Camero, running lows 9s at the time it's pictured? That was Mark Tate's(owner, East Manufacturing). It was built by "Mouse" Mike Matheos. I saw that car from the day it came in until it became that. Later, after Mark nearly died when the nitrous system puked fuel all over the hood and burnt him(thank god for fire suits), Dale pittman, a friend of mine drove it for a while into the 6.30s I think.

Mark tate also had 50+ Corvettes at one time and used to race a couple of them. They would tow them to the track. The Suburban tow vehicle would unhook from the trailer and run a pass. It ran mid to high 10s. It got the leftover motors, lol.

My other friend, Walt Bainey still runs his 70 Chevelle SS, which I saw pulled from a field in probably 89. He kept going bigger and bigger CID and roller lifter and on and on until it wasn't really drive able on the street. Then he went back to a 454 with with a super charger...now he drives it to the track, runs 10s, drives home.

Cameros, chargers, Mustangs, etc, etc. Everyone I knew had an old muscle car, me included(mine was a POS, but that's beside the point).

My point is, time slips talk, bullshit walks. Today's cars, yes even "V6 Sedans" make short work of most of the muscle cars of the 60s.

 

today's V6's = sprinters
Yesterday's V8's = body builders

Which has more muscle? But hey, you are obviously the expert on all things cars so I'll leave it at that.

 

I wasn't claiming to be an expert on anything. I'm stating that from my perspective, when objectively measured, most 60s era muscle cars fall flat. Far flatter than most people are willing to admit.

What you get mostly is people talking about how fast and awesome those old cars were, when in reality today's modern cars are faster, handle better and are safer.

The supposition was "The Muscle car days are today" and by every objective measure, they are.

Again, I love those old 60s "brutes". I don't miss wrenching which is part and parcel of owning one. I once changed the head gaskets on my 289 3 times in 3 weekends. I guess before the internet I didn't have much else to do because I couldn't imagine wasting my time like that now.

 

I don't think this is 100% correct on stock cars. They all had duals but most were just turn down plain pipes. Some at the rear & some at the quarter panels.

Pontiac had a splitter option on the 1/4 panel turndowns & made the single pipe on each side into twin chromed exits at the 1/4 panel.

Most all the exposed polished pipes you see on the muscle cars at a Mecum auction etc. are added by the owner.

 

Just some thoughts on muscle cars & disappointment. There were muscle cars within muscle cars.

In 1966 a big year for the GTO it had 3 engines for the public. Beginner body builder 389 single 4 barrel, Works out regularly 389 Tri-Power, Mr. America contestant XS 389 Ram Air Tri-power, Steroids for all - the Royal Bobcat kit.

Pontiac also had, not for public use, the 421 Ram Air Tri-Power Royal Bobcat ringer that was sent in for the magazine test by Pontiac's Johnny Z

My XS 389 TRI-Power Ram Air Royal Bobcat was a 12 second 113MPH on a regular bases at Englishtown on crappy by todays standards bias ply wide ovals.

Had a number of cars in that era 1962 Impala 409/409 (my first new car), 1964 Grand Prix 389 3X2 both of which were full size @ 2 tons. The 1966 GTO, 1969 Firebird 350HO. Also a keeper the 1967 Stingray coupe which was sold after 28 years of almost daily use.

Would run any of them against a V6 of today in their designed environment, straight line acceleration with a set of summer Michelin PSS or Nitto's. Then again thinking about what they are selling for at auction maybe not.

Don't think I would be disappointed driving one of my old cars but unfortunately the conception is one size fits all about muscle cars.

Very few if any did not have multiple options in engines & transmission which would lead to a pretty big performance spread. Most sold were the bread & butter versions but they all had very potent cars in the lineup. I remember the top end 426 Hemi back then had was placarded with "Do not exceed 12 seconds at full throttle"

 

^
Kevin

You were running 12s in 1966??

Much respect, sir!

 

It was quick BUT big BUT, John Downing from Downing and Ryan Engineering in Rutherford, New Jersey, set the NHRA B/Stock National Record at 11.42 seconds & ran at Englishtown when not in the hunt & at the summer nationals there.

So against the pros it was not competitive where you needed a mid 11 second car.. Did very well against the Sunday racers. No A/C or P/S did not hurt it either. Wide ratio Muncie gave it a good launch, lots of guys were running the close ratio boxes which were a bit slower off the line with equal rear axle ratios.

The RPM drop spread between the wide & close ratio transmissions was not enough to offset the gear multiplication advantage of the wide box.

 

^^
In high school I was happy running 15s all day at LACR, and was ecstatic getting into the 14s and 13s later.


Other posters in this thread are saying TLX v6 will walk all over the muscle cars. Yet you were running 12s.


I wasn't alive back then, but I know that TLX v6 doesn't run 12 sec quarter mile.


We will be in our Raleigh place first week of Jan, would love to check out the Cobra in person if you are around.


Also the Portland info you provided via PM was very helpful.

 

In stock trim, the 427 Shelby Cobra and the Corvette Stingray ran 12s. A 440 road runner was mid 13 seconds. Some very few, the largest CID with the beefiest performance parts were running 13 second quarters.

The vast majority of those cars(Mustangs, Camaros, super bee, Chargers, Challengers, Novas, etc. ran in the 14-15 second range.

Modified stock? Certainly. Headers, cams, carb work, traction bars, slicks, etc, they could easily run much faster.

I'm talking about cars right out of the factory. A TLX V6 runs low 14s. Faster than most of them and would be right there with the rest.

 

Everyone should watch this video about the 2016 civic dual exhaust funny clip.
Skip ahead to 4:15 its a bit funny....or watch the whole thing

LINK>>>>

 

It looks great at night especially, with the Jewel Eyes on .

 

It's going to look off, and ' non-OEM ' because that's exactly what it is. If Acura was going to put exhausts on the TLX, they would have integrated it into the design ( hopefully ) , and have it flow with the bumper and general design/shape of the car. That being said, like the dealers idea of putting exhaust on it, I think it makes the TLX look significantly sportier, which like ggesq said is kind of how they are marketing it.

The photoshopped version of the TLX with the Type S exhaust/bumper is exactly how the rear end of the TLX Type S should look like when it comes out

 

If you look under the rear bumper you will see cut out templates for exposed exhaust on the tlx!