When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Volvo is the ticket. They’re elegant but not flashy, and nobody, absolutely nobody, expects these to be fast but (especially the hybrid models) they will blow the doors off most cars from a roll or from a stop.
I've been interested in Volvo. However they are not cheap. Less than MB or BMW but on par with and can optioned higher than Audi.
2020 TLX V6 Tech for ~$31k was too good a value to pass up. Anything else I liked would have been at least $15-20k more.
I've been interested in Volvo. However they are not cheap. Less than MB or BMW but on par with and can optioned higher than Audi.
2020 TLX V6 Tech for ~$31k was too good a value to pass up. Anything else I liked would have been at least $15-20k more.
Dirty secret about Volvo; they put a lot of cash on the hood thanks to all the cash Geely is pumping into them and their desire to drive more sales. Even on a special order that normally gets no discount, I was able to get over $12000 with the latest batch of incentives. A lot of dealerships are also extremely aggressive discounting "service loaners" which are loaners in name only. My brother was able to pick up a S60 T8 that was "in service" for all of 2 months and 600 miles for $16000 off, plus about $6500 in tax and utilities credits. All in all he wound up paying just under $40K for a loaded 400hp Volvo.
Helll yeah that was me, I miss that car lol the supercharger really performed. That was like 12 years ago, after some grey hair and slowing down it's time for some real power again. I'm debating heavy on the Type S, Acura always hype things up and when it comes out it’s like what happened. BMW quoted me 620 all in for a fully loaded 330i so I’m thinking if I wait around until December it will go down, plus it will get a Dinan flash lol. I have an aspec on hold for now it's supposed to be coming third week in October so if I change my mind I’ll just cancel it. I have my RDX reflashed with Ktuner and it moves buttttt top end is not what everyone thinks. My Aspec top end was insane after all I did to it, the RDX has a ton of torque after the reflash driving around the city or merging, after you get past 60 it feels like a good 4 cyl engine not a turbo one. I’m sure if I do an intake, downpipe, flex fuel upgrades things will change.
Has it been 12 years already?! Wow.. How time flies. I hear you, getting older has indeed slowed things down and added a lot more stress. I run a construction business and it's taken a toll on my body. I'm grateful that it's paid for our home, vehicles, expenses and able to save most of it. I still have my TL. I don't enjoy it as much as I did. It hasn't been my daily for the last 8 years, only use it about 25-50 miles a year. I own two G01 BMW X3's. Both with reflash tunes by codemycar in NJ. Prior to buying the M40i, I looked into the M340i. It's the fastest sedan (stock) i've driven. I wouldn't buy anything new, even though BMW does have great discounts off new vehicles. If you're into performance, buy a used M340i (CPO) and get a stage 1 BM3 tune. I was going to do Dinan, but the BMW enthusiast told me never do a piggy back setup, always do a reflash tune. Doing a reflash tune, the vehicle drives flawlessly. Doing a piggy back setup can cause an issue with the computer fighting the piggy back setup. As of recently, Dinan is doing ECU reflash tunes. They are within the safe limits and about identical to other similar 91-93 stage 1 tunes. The one thing I've noticed in the BMW world, those guys are big on performance and getting the most that they can. BMW forums are very useful, a lot of the members are great! If you have any questions, please feel free to shoot me a PM.
Originally Posted by AcuraGuy2016
7 seconds for a $50k performance sedan is terrible. If true I have zero interest whatsoever in this vehicle. The 2018-2020 V6 AWD did 0-60 in 5.8s with very good passing power.
7 seconds is BASE Accord and Lexus RX territory!! I intentionally did NOT get a Lexus RX since we thought 7s was WAY TOO SLOW for an upscale FAMILY SUV that cost $50k plus.
Last year we ruled out 2019 RDX since its performance sucked, the road noise was terrible, and we hated the track pad. Instead we bought a new MDX Sport Hybrid that is a dream to drive and performs in every way.
Heck the V6 Lexus ES 350 does 0-60 in 6s from multiple tests.
I agree. As I stated before, I'm disappointed with Acura. They were better off keeping the N/A V6 from the 1st gen TLX in the base and leaving the all new 3.0T for the type-s. The 2.0T works great for the Accord and even the RDX but given the specs on the new TLX, they were better off with tweaking the V6 for the base TLX. KTuner had made a post in this section stating they can tune the TLX. So there is hope, as long as the tune is indeed reliable. Remember, these vehicles are new, I doubt anyone wants to void their warranty so early in ownership.
EDIT: Congratulations on the MDX Hybrid!
Last edited by 04WDPSeDaN; 10-01-2020 at 09:54 AM.
I agree. As I stated before, I'm disappointed with Acura. They were better off keeping the N/A V6 from the 1st gen TLX in the base and leaving the all new 3.0T for the type-s. The 2.0T works great for the Accord and even the RDX but given the specs on the new TLX, they were better off with tweaking the V6 for the base TLX. KTuner had made a post in this section stating they can tune the TLX. So there is hope, as long as the tune is indeed reliable. Remember, these vehicles are new, I doubt anyone wants to void their warranty so early in ownership.
I'm not worried about the engine holding up, since we know that it's stout and can handle quite a bit. However, I have no faith in the SHAWD system being able to cope with all the extra torque a tune would unlock. There's got to be a reason why Acura is holding back on torque in the lower gears, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that its to protect the driveline. This could be the worlds smoother and safest tune, and you could still wind up having to pick up pieces of an exploded differential off the pavement.
Has it been 12 years already?! Wow.. How time flies. I hear you, getting older has indeed slowed things down and added a lot more stress. I run a construction business and it's taken a toll on my body. I'm grateful that it's paid for our home, vehicles, expenses and able to save most of it. I still have my TL. I don't enjoy it as much as I did. It hasn't been my daily for the last 8 years, only use it about 25-50 miles a year. I own two G01 BMW X3's. Both with reflash tunes by codemycar in NJ. Prior to buying the M40i, I looked into the M340i. It's the fastest sedan (stock) i've driven. I wouldn't buy anything new, even though BMW does have great discounts off new vehicles. If you're into performance, buy a used M340i (CPO) and get a stage 1 BM3 tune. I was going to do Dinan, but the BMW enthusiast told me never do a piggy back setup, always do a reflash tune. Doing a reflash tune, the vehicle drives flawlessly. Doing a piggy back setup can cause an issue with the computer fighting the piggy back setup. As of recently, Dinan is doing ECU reflash tunes. They are within the safe limits and about identical to other similar 91-93 stage 1 tunes. The one thing I've noticed in the BMW world, those guys are big on performance and getting the most that they can. BMW forums are very useful, a lot of the members are great! If you have any questions, please feel free to shoot me a PM.
I agree. As I stated before, I'm disappointed with Acura. They were better off keeping the N/A V6 from the 1st gen TLX in the base and leaving the all new 3.0T for the type-s. The 2.0T works great for the Accord and even the RDX but given the specs on the new TLX, they were better off with tweaking the V6 for the base TLX. KTuner had made a post in this section stating they can tune the TLX. So there is hope, as long as the tune is indeed reliable. Remember, these vehicles are new, I doubt anyone wants to void their warranty so early in ownership.
I couldn't agree more. As I said before, Acura should have used the same powertrain from the base RLX (310hp V6) with the same 10 speed tranny.
Many buyers still want V6 engines. That would have been an Acura exclusive, there would have been room under the hood. I would have been VERY interested in this vehicle had Acura used the 310hp V6.
I'm not worried about the engine holding up, since we know that it's stout and can handle quite a bit. However, I have no faith in the SHAWD system being able to cope with all the extra torque a tune would unlock. There's got to be a reason why Acura is holding back on torque in the lower gears, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that its to protect the driveline. This could be the worlds smoother and safest tune, and you could still wind up having to pick up pieces of an exploded differential off the pavement.
You are correct. I'm not concern about the engine since the engine was built for a turbo application. I can't see an increase of 2 PSI being the death of this engine. However, seeing the way this vehicle drives under heavy acceleration, it's held back. With a lot of these mild tunes, it increase TQ over HP. I'd say the increase in TQ will indeed put additional stresses on the driveterrian, but will it cause a failure? That's hard to say for sure. I truly appreciate reading all your comments. Thank you!
Originally Posted by AcuraGuy2016
I couldn't agree more. As I said before, Acura should have used the same powertrain from the base RLX (310hp V6) with the same 10 speed tranny.
Many buyers still want V6 engines. That would have been an Acura exclusive, there would have been room under the hood. I would have been VERY interested in this vehicle had Acura used the 310hp V6.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, it's too late now. They will continue to use the 2.0T for the base model. Perhaps during the refresh, they will tweak the setup to perform better. That's also me being wishful and hopeful that Acura will get back to it's roots.
You are correct. I'm not concern about the engine since the engine was built for a turbo application. I can't see an increase of 2 PSI being the death of this engine. However, seeing the way this vehicle drives under heavy acceleration, it's held back. With a lot of these mild tunes, it increase TQ over HP. I'd say the increase in TQ will indeed put additional stresses on the driveterrian, but will it cause a failure? That's hard to say for sure. I truly appreciate reading all your comments. Thank you!
Agreed.
Unfortunately, it's too late now. They will continue to use the 2.0T for the base model. Perhaps during the refresh, they will tweak the setup to perform better. That's also me being wishful and hopeful that Acura will get back to it's roots.
Congratulations again on your MDX!
I think we can forget mechanical changes until the redesign in 6 years. They had a chance to improve things for MMC, but only touched the inside.
Type S may be the same, same tranny just stronger gears, added 20 inch wheels, bbk in the front and a V6 engine weight may be around 4200-4300 since the awd advanced 4k lbs already. 0-60 may be around 5.9 who knows.
C&D got 5.9s on the TLX 2.0T, so if the Type S couldn't do any better, it would be an absolute disaster for Acura.
How much slower is the new one compared to the old V6?
Old TLX V6 could do 0-60 in 5.7 - 5.8 seconds, new one is getting 0-60 in 5.9-7.0 seconds with the majority being around 6.5 seconds so the new TLX is significantly slower then the old TLX V6. It is slower in some tests then older generation TL's and V6 TSX's.
What went through their minds replacing that great V6 with this mediocre 4 cylinder that is in no way better then the previous V6.
Last edited by Knight Rider 357; 10-01-2020 at 11:36 AM.
I couldn't agree more. As I said before, Acura should have used the same powertrain from the base RLX (310hp V6) with the same 10 speed tranny.
Many buyers still want V6 engines. That would have been an Acura exclusive, there would have been room under the hood. I would have been VERY interested in this vehicle had Acura used the 310hp V6.
I agree too. They should have either made the RLX 310hp a mid level engine for the Advance/A spec/Tech package or just had the RLX engine as the standard engine and the turbo V6 as the Type S or higher end option.
They made a huge mistake combining the TSX and TL, making a 4 cyl standard in the TLX, they should have stuck with the TL/TSX formula where you got a V6 standard in a TL and the 4 cylinder was for the TSX. Instead they moved everything down market.
While the turbo 4 may not be terrible for the base engine once you step up to the higher optioned trims at the higher prices where most opted for the V6, this 4 cylinder will be a step down over the previous 6 cylinder and will disappoint buyers coming from a V6. Many buyers want a V6 especially in the higher trims/prices and that was one of the areas the Acura TLX had a advantage is you could get a 6 cylinder without paying close to or well over 50K, now they no longer have that, you have to pay well over 50K just to get a 6 cylinder in the TLX now and you can't even get the Advances nice wood trim or features in that V6. They only reason they stuck that 4 cylinder in the new TLX and replaced the V6 is to save costs and make the Type S seem more special then it is. Huge miss.
C&D got 5.9s on the TLX 2.0T, so if the Type S couldn't do any better, it would be an absolute disaster for Acura.
Part of the issue is, the 0-60 times are all over the place. quite the difference from 5.7 all the way to 7.0. That alone could be the difference from a base vs type-s 0-60 numbers. I think I said the type-s will just about break 4.7-4.9, I have a feeling i'll be very wrong.
I did not scroll up and read all of this, so my apologies if this is a re-post. Anyways, the TLX seems to be down in all categories (0-60, braking, fuel economy, etc) compared to the Accord. Like not a single place where it leads. Do the people at Acura even know what goes on on the Honda side or vice-versa?
Maybe the tires on the Accord are that much better? But I still don't get it. All that development and there is nothing to show for. Those advanced electric-servo brakes serve no propose other than being tied to the NSX and being more complex.
I agree too. They should have either made the RLX 310hp a mid level engine for the Advance/A spec/Tech package or just had the RLX engine as the standard engine and the turbo V6 as the Type S or higher end option.
They made a huge mistake combining the TSX and TL, making a 4 cyl standard in the TLX, they should have stuck with the TL/TSX formula where you got a V6 standard in a TL and the 4 cylinder was for the TSX. Instead they moved everything down market.
While the turbo 4 may not be terrible for the base engine once you step up to the higher optioned trims at the higher prices where most opted for the V6, this 4 cylinder will be a step down over the previous 6 cylinder and will disappoint buyers coming from a V6. Many buyers want a V6 especially in the higher trims/prices and that was one of the areas the Acura TLX had a advantage is you could get a 6 cylinder without paying close to or well over 50K, now they no longer have that, you have to pay well over 50K just to get a 6 cylinder in the TLX now and you can't even get the Advances nice wood trim or features in that V6. They only reason they stuck that 4 cylinder in the new TLX and replaced the V6 is to save costs and make the Type S seem more special then it is. Huge miss.
Unfortunately sedan is a dying species, as shown by the continuous falling sales figures versus SUV sales. Acura has no choice but to consolidate the number of sedan models, and redirects its limited resources to the more successful SUV model lines.
Maybe the tires on the Accord are that much better? But I still don't get it. All that development and there is nothing to show for. Those advanced electric-servo brakes serve no propose other than being tied to the NSX and being more complex.
Braking feel is much better with them, but I agree, it doesn't do squat for stopping distance when you put fuel-economy tires on the car and have it weigh almost 2 tons.
Unfortunately sedan is a dying species, as shown by the continuous falling sales figures versus SUV sales. Acura has no choice but to consolidate the number of sedan models, and redirects its limited resources to the more successful SUV model lines.
It's funny, a lot of the reviews excuse the relatively small backseat by asserting that sedans are really more of a drivers car and for two passengers, and if you want to carry more people in the back then get a SUV. But if that was really the case, if sedan buyers really don't intend to use the backseat very often, why not make it a coupe and have it be that much better looking? Why not just got full-blown performance/sporty rather than compromise the design with a couple of extra doors?
Maybe the tires on the Accord are that much better? But I still don't get it. All that development and there is nothing to show for. Those advanced electric-servo brakes serve no propose other than being tied to the NSX and being more complex.
Originally Posted by fiatlux
Braking feel is much better with them, but I agree, it doesn't do squat for stopping distance when you put fuel-economy tires on the car and have it weigh almost 2 tons.
As most already know I had the pleasure of enjoying a new 2020 NSX for the entire day. I racked in just under 100 miles before returning it. It's not a TLX but my god was the throttle response exhilarating. As for the brakes, I can't say for sure if I noticed that much of a difference vs my M40i which grabs the brakes immediately. I drove the NSX as I would my TL and M40i. The brakes on the NSX felt great and responds immediately. I'm sure the biggest difference is when you track the NSX vs something like the type-s which comes with brembos.
Yeah, I assume the braking performance is way better on the NSX. That's a such great pic btw. That yellow on the NSX is amazing and your 3G TL looks stunning as usual.
I did not scroll up and read all of this, so my apologies if this is a re-post. Anyways, the TLX seems to be down in all categories (0-60, braking, fuel economy, etc) compared to the Accord. Like not a single place where it leads. Do the people at Acura even know what goes on on the Honda side or vice-versa?
The two cars are using basically the same engine and transmission. The TLX-2 weighs 600lbs more. It all makes perfect sense to me that the TLX-2 is slower. I suppose you could always pay $10,000 less plus what ever discount you can find and buy a Accord touring. 🤔
The two cars are using basically the same engine and transmission. The TLX-2 weighs 600lbs more. It all makes perfect sense to me that the TLX-2 is slower. I suppose you could always pay $10,000 less plus what ever discount you can find and buy a Accord touring. 🤔
Agreed. Considering the 600lbs difference, a 5.9s 0-60 is actually pretty good. I'm curious how quick the FWD TLX is.
Yeah, I assume the braking performance is way better on the NSX. That's a such great pic btw. That yellow on the NSX is amazing and your 3G TL looks stunning as usual.
Thank you
I loved the yellow! Now the biggest issue I have, wifey has become obsessed with the NSX
Basically as fast my old 2002 Maxima SE 6 Speed (0.1 faster to 60, 0.2 sec faster to 1/4 mile, identical trap speed, 0.3 faster to 100) and longer braking distances.
The 4G SH-AWD 6MT with all season tires was quite faster.
I hope the Type S can at least crack the 5 sec barrier at this point.
I'm not worried about the engine holding up, since we know that it's stout and can handle quite a bit. However, I have no faith in the SHAWD system being able to cope with all the extra torque a tune would unlock. There's got to be a reason why Acura is holding back on torque in the lower gears, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that its to protect the driveline. This could be the worlds smoother and safest tune, and you could still wind up having to pick up pieces of an exploded differential off the pavement.
Yes, my old Saab 9-5 Aero had torque reduction in lower gears in part to protect the clutch, but I think also to mitigate torque steer. That's one reason its 0-60 time was nothing special, despite its seriously underrated power. But on the highway, it was an absolute monster, and I'm very curious how the new TLX with SH-AWD would feel on the highway. From C&D's instrumented test, it seems the TLX posted decent but not exceptional 30-50 and 50-70 times, but as always we need to remember just how big this beast is:
He got a 6.26 sec 0-60 on the 2021 model, and 6.49 sec 0-60 on the 2020. I suspect temperature was a big factor (54°F, or 12°c) helping the 2.0 turbo. Barring a straight-up drag race, this may be the best evidence so far for the 2021 model...
Launching aggressively in the 3.5 PAWS without the front end darting around takes some practice to master. Even with TCS on, it still struggles for traction. (I will say that it helps to be a former 5.5G Maxima owner.).
Despite the abundance of low end torque, I found the the 21 FWD A-Spec far more manageable under hard launch.
Just read a road test on the 2021 TLX Aspec SHWD. They clocked the 0-60 at 5.7 seconds. I was off by a few tenths. And this was a said preliminary test on a new car. Yep it's weight definitely had an effect. The Audi A4 was listed at 5.4,the BMW 330i at 5.2, and the Mercedes C300 at 5.6. I am sure this put a big smile on the German car owners on this thread. And although it was mentioned in the review that the TLX numbers in acceleration,braking, handling, fuel economy and noise did not blow the out of the water the competition, it still overall was a great car to drive. And as we all know ( but some on this thread won't admit ) it has distinct advantages over the competition. And please don't disagree with me again with what those are.
5.7s? Yeah, maybe going downhill with a tailwind. Every other review has it between 5.9s-7s, with most right around 6.2s-6.4s. I believe you predicted 5.2s, which is quite a fair bit off.
My post below was from the Reviews thread but it's appropriate here for anyone who hasn't seen the SG video review:
Originally Posted by ELIN
Thanks to the speedometer that was projecting on the HUD in SG's review, I clocked his Advance at 6.2 sec. I did this 3 times and not once did it even approach 6.5 sec, let alone the 7 sec that Jack mentioned.
You guys can replicate this yourselves at the 15:46 mark in the video.
My post below was from the Reviews thread but it's appropriate here for anyone who hasn't seen the SG video review:
I did the same thing with some of the other review videos (looking at the actual frame counts in fact), and naysayers still claimed that it wasn't accurate and that the 5.7s quoted by AoA is gospel.
I joined this forum while looking for other people’s 1/4 mile times for the TLX but here are my findings using the draggy. 2018 A-spec vs 2021 A-spec
2018 TLX A-spec FWD, 28,000 miles, 1/4 tank of fuel (89 octane), original tires ( hard from age) best of 6 runs and traction limited 14.74@99.58
2021 TLX A-spec FWD 11 miles full tank of fuel as delivered( unknown octane) 2 runs with a best of 14.89@97.42 mph
I will run the 2021 again after some break in miles and with a 1/4 tank to accurately compare the two.
Thanks for sharing. You might be one of the first to share times for the FWD 2021 TLX. For reference, C&D got a 14.2 second 1/4-mile on both the FWD and AWD G1 TLX (although the trap speed differed, 103mph FWD, 100mph AWD); and they got a 14.5 second @ 97mph on the AWD G2 TLX.
Inferring from your numbers, it could be possible the FWD G2 TLX is actually quicker than the AWD G2. Barring the Type S, the G1 TLX AWD is still the quickest TLX off the line, although the G1 FWD will reel it in towards the end, and the G2 FWD & AWD would be neck-and-neck for 3rd place. I'm thinking with the G2 that the weight savings with FWD would offset any gains from AWD traction in a 1/4-mile.
Thanks for sharing. You might be one of the first to share times for the FWD 2021 TLX. For reference, C&D got a 14.2 second 1/4-mile on both the FWD and AWD G1 TLX (although the trap speed differed, 103mph FWD, 100mph AWD); and they got a 14.5 second @ 97mph on the AWD G2 TLX.
Inferring from your numbers, it could be possible the FWD G2 TLX is actually quicker than the AWD G2. Barring the Type S, the G1 TLX AWD is still the quickest TLX off the line, although the G1 FWD will reel it in towards the end, and the G2 FWD & AWD would be neck-and-neck for 3rd place. I'm thinking with the G2 that the weight savings with FWD would offset any gains from AWD traction in a 1/4-mile.
My thinking is with some break in miles and a 1/4 tank of fuel I can definitely improve on the 2021 ET&MPH. Also the fact that I’ll have some quality higher octane in the tank which might curb any timing retard the ECU may be pulling (again not sure of what’s in the tank)
Most guys have found C&D Times/Terminal speeds hard to match as they will beat the crap out of a car then post the best run. They also typically use a prepared launch site with traction compound. Then run a standardization algorithm for altitude, weather, etc so that the results in the various tests can be fairly compared issue to issue. Basically the perfect world.
Dragy gives two 0-60 times one raw the other with a rollout. Have found Dragy to be very accurate when measured against typical strip clocks. Dragy in the car during a run. Basically real life for non pros. Have noticed like Jeff that traction on the street is a real issue for many cars. A good running FWD will always lose traction due to weight shift taking weigh off the front tires & a strong RWD due to the torque over powering the tires even with the weight shift.
AWD is the launch king, but it also needs extra muscle to overcome the weight & internal friction/rotational losses incurred as the run continues.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 01-05-2021 at 12:04 PM.
Interesting to note MotorWeek got a 0-60 in 5.8 sec and 14.4 sec quarter-mile. That's quicker than what C&D got (5.9 sec), slower than A-on-A (5.7 sec), but definitely makes MT's 7.0 seconds look like an outlier.
MotorWeek also said it was the quickest Acura sedan they've tested, although I went back to their other reviews and see the only TLX they track tested was the automatic 2.4L. They reviewed the V6 G1 TLX and 3G TL Type S but didn't test 0-60.
Interesting to note MotorWeek got a 0-60 in 5.8 sec and 14.4 sec quarter-mile. That's quicker than what C&D got (5.9 sec), slower than A-on-A (5.7 sec), but definitely makes MT's 7.0 seconds look like an outlier.
MotorWeek also said it was the quickest Acura sedan they've tested, although I went back to their other reviews and see the only TLX they track tested was the automatic 2.4L. They reviewed the V6 G1 TLX and 3G TL Type S but didn't test 0-60.
I always said it was a 6 second car. That 7 second time was pure anecotal evidence since there was no other mention that supported it.
10-01-2020, 09:36 AM
