Is the TLX using same chassis as current Accord? How about RLX? Does the RLX and TLX share same chassis? Or is it brand new chassis underneath?

 

The TLX and Accord share the same platform (the wheelbase is the same).

The RLX however I believe uses the previous generation platform that the previous Accord, TL and RL used (don't quote me on that - my understanding is that it definitely does not use the same platform from the TLX/Accord though).

Notably, the RLX still uses the double wishbone suspension found in the previous generation Accord and TL while the new Accord and TLX use a MacPherson strut suspension.

According to Acura, the only parts the TLX and Accord share are the floor pan (Reference: http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...lx-first-drive )

 

Thanks for the great info!

 

Check this post where I posted the dimensions of the TLX, TL, Accord and RLX
https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...3&postcount=17

 

Since the "platforms" are comprised of three individual sections, it is possible to have different wheelbases on the same generation platform. By swapping out the front subframe, they could provide the RLX with a wishbone suspension without having to change out the basic chassis or rear subframe. The RLX and Accord debuted at roughly the same time, they are surely using the same chassis in a LWB configuration.

 

It's certainly possible to have a different wheel base with the same platform. I believe VW/Audi/etc already do this with their platforms, I think most automakers have or are in process of doing very similar things

 

MacPherson struts? Not sure I like that idea.

 

Despite MB's large range of vastly different vehicle models, it is in the process of switching to only 4 main platforms for all future MB vehicles.

One for the all FWD models, one for all RWD models, one for all SUV models, and one for all sport car models.

Presumably, all other automakers can follow suit in eliminating unnecessary vehicle platforms to cut cost.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/me...rms-78508.html

 

Last generation 1 & 3 series used the same platform. Have not checked but expect the current 2,3 & 4 use the same one. Different wheelbases are not a limiting factor.

 

Edmunds says the RLX is not quite the Accord everyone would think it is...

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...alkaround.html

 

Same platform upgraded suspension. No different than the 435 & M4 using the same platform with different power trains & suspensions.

AFAIK Honda has two car platforms the large body Accord, TLX, RLX & small body Civic & ILX. Regional derivatives share these like the Australian Honda Legend/USA RLX. Welcome to global marketing.

 

The platform is different for the Accord and RLX, besides the size differences (width, track, wheelbase,..) the floorpan, subframe and suspension pickup points are also different.
Take a look under next time even the box section channels are also different sizes. They do share some of the chassis design concepts.
Most manufactures are using modular chassis concepts, but the RLX and Accord structural components are different just like the 2G RL and 1G Legend were different from the Accord's of their era.

 

"Honda builds the RLX in Sayama, Japan, on the same R-Large sedan platform that supports other FWD sedans, namely the Honda Accord and Acura TL ".

They all do cut, paste, tack & weld on the platforms but they have to cut & past off some specific base. Honda is currently making a big deal to investors about consolidating platforms with the smaller one focusing on the Fit & CRV sized cars. As far as I know currently there are two major sedan platforms the large & small. If the new RLX was different that would introduce a third which is the opposite way they are going.

Also if they were to introduce a third platform why not go the way of BMW, Lexus & MB with a rear wheel bias for the upscale models?

 

Can we stop pretending all the big companies don't already do this? The Lexus ES is a Camry. The Cadillac ATS, Buick Verano, and Chevrolet Cruze all share a platform. My A4 was a Volkswagen Passat. That's just the start of it.

Acura has FWD for the non-enthusiast with hopes the enthusiasts will option for the SH-AWD. This isn't only an Acura philosophy. Audi does it, too.

 

To some extent but it's not the same floorpan AFAIK.

There are varing degrees of reuse in industry.

• Some is pure reuse, where nothing is changed on a platform including the floorpan.
• Sometimes there are modular structures that weld together different sections to create different wheelbases and lengths. European manufacturers have been big into that lately
• Sometimes only the subframe and suspension components are changed

The Honda/Acura large SUV/Minivan chassis is a modular case. There are alot of commonalities between a 1G Pilot and 2G Ody but they are not the same floorpan. Also for the Ridgeline and MDX as well.


The same holds true for the RLX and Accord, the floorpan look similar but they are not the same floorpan.


Typically the floorpan is the most expensive die, but sometimes they use segmented dies as well to allow sectional changes too.

 

Of course they do. GM, Ford & Chrysler were doing it before I was born. The ES is an Avalon now I believe. Is the Avalon also a Camry? As I said earlier the 1xx & 3xx & M3 shared the same platform. I think the 2/3/4 & M3/4 all use the same one.

My 135is had about 18" sectioned out of it compared to my 335is of the same generation. What is unusual however is for the $60/$70K top of the line flagship to use the same one as the manufactures level economy car line.

 

The BMW F01/02 (current 7 series flagship) platform shares with the F10 (current 5 series), not sure but I'd bet a week's salary the tooling is segmented to allow larger and wider floor section.

 

But its not shared by 2,3 & 4 & what ever the new FWD units are called. Same with MB the S class units do not share with CLA.

Think we need to agree to disagree on the semantics. The platforms are designed from the get go to be expandable/shrinkable to cover a number of models that's is the whole point, as much commonality as possible to keep costs down.

Honda is talking about a new global light truck platform & a new global small car platform for the Fit, CR-V & Accord. Expect that's the Euro Accord.

That would leave what (large car platform?) for the US Accord, TLX, RLX & Legend?

 

To some of these later points, seems a lot more of this goes on than most want to admit is ever talked about. Daimler platforms, also used in MB's, have been found in many Chrysler products and are rumored to already be in at least one Infiniti model. Think the C platform is in the new Q. They will also be swapping some engines and sharing additional platforms in the future, if not already.

The E class coupe actually uses the C class platform as opposed to the E. The new C class platform or the platform used for the new C class, will be the basis for the next E and S as well, which are a few years out but it applies nonetheless. BMW plans to move to just 2 platforms in years to come. And we have heard a few other examples already as well, there are plenty more.

Never really understood the argument against this. Typically, we have seen Honda and maybe Toyota take the most crap for it while little to no mention elsewhere. I don't think the platforms and shared parts and components are the basis for actual criticism however, it ends up there because of the enthusiast demand for RWD when you use FWD and you have rarely seen an Acura product reviewed by major media outlets that don't ever fail to mention these points, when we really don't know exactly what the extent of all of the using and sharing is. Really only Honda/Acura knows that. Some of that criticism has been unwarranted if you ask me.

Honda has never shied away from it (maybe up until now) as there has been little reason to in their minds I guess and that may be a big part of it. While it looks like other guys, Daimler and MB for example, have used a few tactics in the past to evade this type of acknowledgement, nevermind the criticism that typically comes with it. Rarely have others simply ever come out with it, instead they make dodging statements as was the case for the E coupe, for one.

Today, don't actually know if any less is shared with the Honda/Acura platforms or sedans especially but if not, it looks like they have gotten on board with downplaying things, as it is often twisted negatively regardless of the benefit. Even now, we have heard things ranging from the TLX are largely similar to the Accord underpinnings to only the floor pan is shared, so again, who knows? And why portray it positively or negatively if we (or the media) really don't know?

Because I would bet that you start telling people it's 90% unique and original and they come away with glowing and positive reviews that suggest that it's nothing like an Accord, it's better, more refined, well worth it over the Accord, etc, etc. While you tell others it is virtually the same as an Accord instead and you get totally different comments, such as gloried Honda, more money for a badge, should be RWD even though there is a huge FWD luxury/premium market for sedans, should just release it has a Honda, Acura should die, etc, etc.

Bottomline, it's mostly perception related with these types of things and more about what people put into their minds and maybe it shouldn't be. The products should be judged fairly as they stand and how they relate to the the buyer and it's price. All the parent company, parts and platform stuff should have little basis in anything. Maybe with minor exceptions.

 

The reason its brought up is because it would appear to be an important issue in the marketplace. I would expect based on the Honda/Acura officials stressing that only the floor pan is the same that their focus groups & surveys turned this up as a significant issue effecting the cars sales.

Otherwise in marketing land you leave sleeping dogs lie & not bring any attention to it.

As for the BMW - MB do it, the difference is they do it among BMW & MB brand cars. The Chrysler thing does not count because the Chrysler is getting a MB platform not the other way round. Lexus does it for its ES but moves on as the price goes up.

Acura has the additional built in issue of using one initially designed for a $22,000 economy car. Every release of an Acura has a lot of glorified Acura traffic attached to it so for them its a real problem.

People here might not like that or think its fair but at least Honda recognizes it & it trying to change perception. Marketing 101 perception is reality.

 

As for the actual specs there is nothing in them to suggest the pans are different.
Accord
109.3
191.4
57.7
72.8
62.8/62.7
TLX
109.2
190.3
57.0
73.0
62.8/63.1
RLX
112.2 + 2.9
196.1 + 4.7
57.7 = Acura
74.4 + 1.4
64.3/64.2 + 1.5/1.1

 

+1

Cheap suspension compared to a double wishbone and multi link design. This is a step backwards (no matter how much better the chassis may be).

 

Not questioning why it was brought up nor debating the reality of it or suggesting it's a non issue or it's not a hot topic, just that I don't agree with it and too many conclusions are drawn from a lot of nothing. Not that this is worth anything but only because we are talking about it.

I'm still not so sure that it's ok or any different if done in brand or assumed done top-down instead of what people conclude is bottom-up with Honda-Acura, for example. Some of these platforms will have a $100k spread (it's less than half at Honda/Acura) and the other point is we don't know any of the specifics or what is going on in the minds of Daimler or Honda platform engineers, for examples, or anybody else and what cars they may or may not already have had in mind. Who is to say it's not an Acura platform? Official word is that it is a global mid ship platform used in both product lines, how does that get spinned into "Accord" or "$22k" platform? That isn't Honda's marketing, I would assume.

For example, with the new platform for the C class or the "C class platform" (you see that in itself is perception and/or context but who knows what is really what?), we don't know if the C is the target and it's stretched, the S shrunk or the E and little of both. Maybe all of the above and maybe so much can be done with them that there is no single car basis and they can achieve whatever they need and so it's no matter. This would naturally go for Honda and others as well. Or maybe we should call it an Infiniti platform because it made it's debut there and maybe that was in mind.

Maybe Daimler had many Chrysler models in mind when they built some platforms we find in Mercedes models. Maybe they were or should still be called Chrysler platforms. We have no idea about any of that and so why are we drawing so many conclusions? Only the brands know and they can say whatever they want and media outlets write whatever they want and most people don't think past any of it.

Marketing perception is often reality but that doesn't mean it is the truth or what now becomes someone's reality is based in only fact or truth. Again, it seems too hard to have any real basis in what is what in any of these types of sharing concepts, we were not in the meetings or had any hand in building the things nor have the media outlets and they often talk as if they were but that kind of talk can be cheap and so personally, I don't bother with any of that because you will never really know with 100% certainty, there are always so many other positive and negative qualities in a car to focus on that, and if whatever issues we find don't objectively and directly relate to chassis, does it matter?

 

I agree it's semantics that we agree to disagree on.

There is alot of component sharing going on. The Pilot/MDX/Ody/Ridgeline share alot of suspension components but the floorpans are different. There are all part of the large truck platform but is the base chassis the same no.

This happens alot in the auto industry with reuse it just depends on what they are sharing. Although sometimes a product comes out that is wholy unique, the S2000 was like that. chassis, suspension, drivetrain, .... all unique.