The TLX is featured this week on Motorweek. Haven't seen the show yet, but the online review states an 8.7 0-60 and a 16.7 quarter mile for the 4 cylinder. My TLX 4 cyl. seems A LOT faster than that.

Here's the link: 2015 Acura TLX |MotorWeek

 

what a turtle..better not line up with any older TSXs...lmmfao

 

Econ mode? LOL

 

 

Don't understand how that can be. The 2.4 MT Accord has been clocked at 6.6. The TLX can't be over 2 seconds slower. Did they know you had to release the parking brake?

 

They got 3.8 for the StingRay which is typical. I believe they are usually in the ballpark but would have expected the TLX to be at least 2.0 quicker.

They did some cold track tests which will be slower, did they say anything about the TLX track temp?

As an aside, its interesting to watch members on a site with "its not a racecar" & many saying they don't care about 0-60, get all wound up of poor 0-60 results.

 

That would be interesting if the people who said they don't care about 0-60 get wound up by 0-60 results. Otherwise, it may be some people on the site care and some don't. But that's just my line of thinking.

 

I haven't seen the show yet (on 9:00 A.M. in my area tomorrow) so I don't know if there are any unusual circumstances involved.

 

0-60 is not as important as the tossability of a car imo. The 4cyl has a near perfect weight balance right?

 

the 0-60 time isnt that accurate since traction makes a big difference. The tlx comes stock with pretty skinny tires so traction might be a problem with a good launch. 1/4 is usually a better indication. However they stated 16.7 for the 1/4 mile which is surprisingly high!

 

There must be some kind mistake.... it should be much faster, maybe they are quoting tsx?

 

That's the MT though. Mags usually get their MT times by repeated brutal high RPM launches. Dual clutch cars that offer a launch mode offer similar results, but the TLX's torque converter takes a way from some of the performance advantages of a dual clutch. I can say from experience that a 2nd gen tsx 6MT is significantly faster than a tsx with that awful 5AT. I still don't think the new TLX could really be as bad as 8.7 though. That's what a honda fit does.

 

Yeah I agree. I don't expect the 2.4 to be a barn burner in speed, but that 8.7 seems off. I test drove the 2.4 for almost an hour and though I was not doing it in any scientific way, it never felt that slow...

 

8.7 was the time for the TSX 5AT.

That's basically the same time as the Fit which I don't believe for a second.

 

2014 BMW i8 Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2015 BMW i8 | MotorWeek
Car and Driver got 3.8s for 0-60mph and 12.4 for 1/4 mile for the BMW I8.
Motorweek got 4.4s and 12.9.

2014 Infiniti QX60 Hybrid AWD Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2014 Infiniti QX60 Hybrid | MotorWeek
Car and Driver got 7.6s for 0-60mph and 16s for 1/4 mile for the Infinti Q60 hybrid.
Motorweek got 8.4s and 16.7.

2014 BMW 328d | MotorWeek
2014 BMW 328d | MotorWeek
Car and Driver got 7.1s for 0-60mph and 15.5 for 1/4 mile for the BMW 328d.
Motorweek got 6.4s and 14.7.

These are just recent road tests I randomly pulled from Motor week. Not sure about you guys, but their numbers seem way off compared to Car and Driver. I think it's best to wait for more magazine tests from companies such as Car and Driver, Motortrend, and Edmunds.

 

I seem to remember motorweek got the fastest 1/4 mile for the 6 speed V6 accord coupe 8 gen. Over 8 seconds if right is terrible and makes a mockery of claimed 1.5 second improvements. I have to say the car felt slower than my TSX MT, and sub 7 seconds would surprise me. But over 8 sounds impossibly slow. I'd have thought low 7s. Less brake torquing makes a big difference.

 

Why is it so hard to believe that a 3500 pound 206hp 4-cylinder automatic takes 8.7 seconds to 60mph? Considering that the TLX weighs the same as a TSX while having no more power, why would you expect the TLX to be faster than the TSX?

 

When I drove the 2.4 my butt dyno told me it was definitely faster than my TSX. In ECO mode it is a dog... in Normal mode it felt faster, definitely faster in Sport and Sport +. They need to state what mode they are in when they post these times. I'm sure more reviewers will post 0-60 times. I wouldn't get too stressed out about it. Just test drive it yourself, it is no slouch.

 

I would say no...

Edmunds got 7.8 out of the Accord with pretty much the same 2.4 engine with the CVT. I find it hard to believe the TLX which is tuned to have a little more hp would run almost a full second slower???

Click -> 2013 Honda Accord EX Road Test Specs | Edmunds.com

 

I would think that a combo of a slightly stronger engine and a "performance" transmission would result in better times than the 2012 TSX Sportwagon I traded in for the TLX. It feels faster, and also feels faster than my 2014 Forte EX that has been timed in the low to mid 7's for 0-60.

Time for some 0-60 runs today, if I can find a road without any traffic.

 

I agree. Most of the road tests of TSX'x were with manual transmissions. Find a test of one with an automatic and they are in that range. I drove one with an automatic once and was amazed at how slow the car was.

 

I think it's because the TLX has more torque over its entire rev range, and because the 8DCT's short gearing, tight ratios, and quick shifting should produce higher performance than the TSX's 6MT. I didn't push the TLX I tested, but can certainly attest to the lightning quick shifting of the DCT, so I would be surprised by such a slow 0-60 time, especially in Sport+ mode. Maybe the torque converter hurts performance off the line.

For acceleration, I'm much more interested in how the TLX's 50-80 time would compare to my 6MT TSX, because that's when I really miss the punch of my old Saab 9-5 Aero. With its additional torque and DCT, I would expect the TLX to be a little better than the TSX.

 

FWIW, Motor Trend estimated 0-60 for the TLX range at 5.8-6.5 secs:

2015 Acura TLX First Drive - Motor Trend

Also, the torque converter is actually supposed to improve performance off the line, which makes an 8.7 sec. 0-60 all the more puzzling for the I4/DCT variant.

 

It's a double edged sword to have 8 speeds, though. During normal driving, a good 8speed auto means that you have a better chance of keeping get your revs in the engine's powerband. However, it also means you need more gear changes during the 0-60 runs. No actual owner is going to launch the car like in the magazines, meaning revving to redline and holding the car with brakes before launching with massive wheelspin.

 

Don't forget that the Accord is a good 100 to 150 pounds lighter. Also a CVT may not be much fun to drive, but is the most efficient transmission when it comes to keeping the engine's revs constant at the most optimal RPM.

 

TLX = Turtle-Like-Xpress

Just kidding. I think Acura found the sweet spot with the TLX. It will be a good seller (but that's another thread).

Haven't seen the MotorWeek segment yet, but I will look for it.

 

It appears to me that their estimate is for the V6. It seems logical that the 4 cylinder with 90 hp less, but only weighs 100 less pounds, would be 2 seconds slower.

 

I'm aware of the gear change issue, but with the quick-shifting DCT its effect should be minimal -- less than with a manual transmission. FWIW, I saw another estimate of the I4 TLX at 7.2 secs 0-60, which seems plausible to me, and is in the range of the numbers I recall seeing for the TSX with MT. This would make it slower than the Accord Sport with MT, which isn't surprising.

 

C&D doesn't mention it, but I believe their tests are done with a 1 foot rollout in the drag racing tradition. This can shave .5 to 1 second off the 0-60 time. In contrast, MotorWeek tests from a standing start. Edmunds does both.

 

You might be right. 2012 TSX Wagon here, with 5AT, 3600 pounds, and 201 horses. I've read 0-60 times for the wagon ranging from 8.7 seconds to 8.2 seconds. The faster times are either in sport-mode or on the paddles.

So 8.7 seconds for the 2.4L TLX 8 speed with 206 horses is not out of the realm of possibility. I've read unconfirmed rumors that there is a slight delay when you floor it from a standing start; the hill hold feature needs to disengage. And as you mentioned earlier, with 8 speeds, there's just more shifting going on.

 

Also I think C&D uses a correction factor as well to account for air pressure and temp variance. I pay the most attention to motor trend numbers and how they compare to the different models in other motor trend tests.

Maybe motorweek was doing their testing in Denver

 

I suspect they couldn't figure out how to turn off the electronic parking brake and ran the test with it engaged...

 

just watched it. Very slow launch. If this js the case then acura must be dreading comparative tests. Something must be amiss. Surely with 8 speeds and lower first and seconds a faster time should be possible. Maybe it needed VSA disabled and brake torquing. And they forgot? Seems improbable.

 

The article is a little confusing with the statistics box. The stats indicate both V6 and i4 performances and actually doesn't indicate which car the 0-60 is even for let alone what mode it was running under. Later in the text it indicates they are driving the AWD model, so what gives?

I don't put much faith in those numbers. Somebody should download or use Dynolicious on their iPhone (one night on an level freeway on ramp- I prefer Canon road ramp northbound 5 in Carlsbad CA) and see what that app reads. I have more faith in Dynolicious than these numbers.

 

Where's the "wound up"? Hyperbole much?

 

^^^^^

35 posts since dinner time last night + a second active thread of 27 posts on a subject that is supposed to be of no importance according to the defenders of the faith.

 

I'm in the middle of watching the episode and they definitely got the times with the an I4 (a nice looking red one, btw... they also show a lot of the SSM).

They got their mileage all screwed up, though. They showed the "V6 AWD Automatic" getting 21/34/25. smh.

 

For those of you who own the I4, does it default to Eco mode on start up? Does eco mode start out in second gear, or have you detected a difference of what rpm the torque converter locks up when starting off in 1st?

Something seemed wrong with the car Motorweek had. One of the zero to 60 runs was shown from an angle looking into the drivers side window - both hands on the wheel - he floored it - and it took off like a dog. Sounded like a 2nd gear start to me, the way the engine bogged - certainly no torque converter letting the engine wind up before it locked up for something similar to a higher rpm MT clutch drop, like what the Acura marketing/engineering guys say is the advantage of a torque converter with DCT. Either that, or Acura intentionally gives 1st gear a high ratio in combo with a torque converter that is not supposed to lock up until a higher rpm, and the car either malfunctioned and locked up the torque converter too soon, or ECO mode locks it up at a very low rpm for better fuel economy at the expense of 2+ seconds of 0-60 acceleration time.

My understanding of C&D tests is they do a brake-torgue standing start (on AT cars), and they do a 5-60 time. I've always liked the 5-60 time with MT cars as the true comparator of real world driving characteristics.

I must also comment on lack of any video tests of any SH-AWD car in a slalom. I could never find such a test with the 4G TL; and now, here's a Motorweek test of only a fwd 4 cyl in the slalom. This has always made me wonder if SH-AWD is insufficiently responsive to work well in that situation. I own a 2010 SH-AWD 6MT TL; and the system works well on the street, on ramps, etc. However, I've never auto-crossed it where slaloms are typical. Something tells me electronic differentials take a nap during rapid transitions, or hopefully not worse, the system lags behind and sends power to the wrong wheel at the wrong time. Even if it behaved like a regular front drive car in the slalom, it seems Acura would have been willing to release at least one SH-AWD car for testing where a slalom was involved.

 

^^^^^

Just lots of pure speculation till the big 3 magazines that are willing & able to really flog a car do their tests of the TLX.

Just wondering what the comments on site will be if the car just proves to be a nice looking competent DD & not the hot rod the adds are trying to portray.

Some guys seem to be worrying about the TLX obtaining a 6 second 0-60 time when the current crop of sport sedans are starting to drop into the mid & upper 4's.

Might be that Honda is no longer in the 0-60 race when good images on the TV & in print adds will do just as well for many people. Even the performance image BMW 3/4 series sell a lot more DD 320/328's than MPPK equipped 335/435 series.

Think if its an overall marketing plan the only issue they had was not getting the TLX-GT onto the track in time for the launch.

 

^ FWIW, While I was at the local launch event, I asked my salesman how often he is asked what the 0-60 of a car is. He just stared at me and said, "Never."

I know it's important to a lot of people here and all know why. No need to rehash that, yet again.