0-60 & 1/4 mile times
#161
#162
Lola
Buy the Accord and save yourself a crapload of money would be my advice.
#163
Sure, but 1) we don't know whether Acura has done anything to beef things up for the SHAWD 2.0T TLX and 2) even if they did, the Accord 2.0T also weighs about 600lb less.
#164
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 845 Likes
on
526 Posts
Yup, that's why I think we need to wait for the test results to see what it's like. I certainly don't expect the TLX 2.0T AWD to trap 104mph in the 1/4 mile like the Accord does. The accord has a power to weight ratio of 13.1lb/hp. The TLX 2.0T AWD is about 14.4lb/hp. I'd imagine the TLX will be trapping at 97-100mph. The 330i, A4 2.0T, and C300 all trap at 99-100mph,
#165
#166
Yes, but don't you think it would be embarrassing if the accord was actually faster. I just don't think they would let that happen.
#167
Again, it doesn’t matter whether or not I think that will be embarrassing. I know it will be slower because it weighs a ton more (figuratively, it’s literally a little over a quarter ton more) and has the same powertrain. Just because you think it would be embarrassing does not change the laws of physics.
Last edited by fiatlux; 09-14-2020 at 07:52 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by fiatlux:
bilirubin (09-14-2020),
Neoforever (09-15-2020)
#168
You must not have been around Acura for very long. The 1G TLX is already slower than the V6 Accord. 0-60 and 5-60 are both 0.2 seconds slower. If they weren’t embarrassed back then, what makes you think they’d be embarrassed now?
Again, it doesn’t matter whether or not I think that will be embarrassing. I know it will be slower because it weighs a ton more (figuratively, it’s literally a little over a quarter ton more) and has the same powertrain. Just because you think it would be embarrassing does not change the laws of physics.
Again, it doesn’t matter whether or not I think that will be embarrassing. I know it will be slower because it weighs a ton more (figuratively, it’s literally a little over a quarter ton more) and has the same powertrain. Just because you think it would be embarrassing does not change the laws of physics.
#169
https://acurazine.com/forums/second-.../#post16622034
But let’s expand on that. Assuming Acura made no updates to strengthen the drivetrain, for the SHAWD version I stand by my guess of 0-60 in 6.2, and guess a 5-60 of 6.6 and quarter-mile time of 14.7@97mph. If they did beef up the drivetrain and you can launch it with some gusto and without the ECU pulling power, then I guess 0-60 in 6.0, 5-60 in 6.5, and quarter mile of 14.4@100mph. All times are based on C&D testing procedures. Even with an ideal setup it’s going to be slower than the Accord 2.0T; there’s just no way around the extra weight.
Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this so we can come back and see whether I’m more Nostradamus or if I’m more Homer Simpson.
Last edited by fiatlux; 09-14-2020 at 10:06 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Neoforever (09-15-2020)
#170
I already did last month:
https://acurazine.com/forums/second-.../#post16622034
But let’s expand on that. Assuming Acura made no updates to strengthen the drivetrain, for the SHAWD version I stand by my guess of 0-60 in 6.2, and guess a 5-60 of 6.6 and quarter-mile time of 14.7@97mph. If they did beef up the drivetrain and you can launch it with some gusto and without the ECU pulling power, then I guess 0-60 in 6.0, 5-60 in 6.5, and quarter mile of 14.4@100mph. All times are based on C&D testing procedures. Even with an ideal setup it’s going to be slower than the Accord 2.0T; there’s just no way around the extra weight.
Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this so we can come back and see whether I’m more Nostradamus or if I’m more Homer Simpson.
https://acurazine.com/forums/second-.../#post16622034
But let’s expand on that. Assuming Acura made no updates to strengthen the drivetrain, for the SHAWD version I stand by my guess of 0-60 in 6.2, and guess a 5-60 of 6.6 and quarter-mile time of 14.7@97mph. If they did beef up the drivetrain and you can launch it with some gusto and without the ECU pulling power, then I guess 0-60 in 6.0, 5-60 in 6.5, and quarter mile of 14.4@100mph. All times are based on C&D testing procedures. Even with an ideal setup it’s going to be slower than the Accord 2.0T; there’s just no way around the extra weight.
Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this so we can come back and see whether I’m more Nostradamus or if I’m more Homer Simpson.
#171
MT: 6.4
C&D: 6.6
Automobile Mag: 6.4
Consumer Guide: 6.6
Motorweek: 6.5
Hondata: 6.46
This was the thread from 2 years ago when everyone was going gaga about how it'll have a 5.5 0-60 time because someone claimed it's 5.7s.
https://acurazine.com/forums/third-g...econds-970248/
Oh how wrong everyone was...
The following users liked this post:
bilirubin (09-15-2020)
#172
I already did last month:
https://acurazine.com/forums/second-.../#post16622034
But let’s expand on that. Assuming Acura made no updates to strengthen the drivetrain, for the SHAWD version I stand by my guess of 0-60 in 6.2, and guess a 5-60 of 6.6 and quarter-mile time of 14.7@97mph. If they did beef up the drivetrain and you can launch it with some gusto and without the ECU pulling power, then I guess 0-60 in 6.0, 5-60 in 6.5, and quarter mile of 14.4@100mph. All times are based on C&D testing procedures. Even with an ideal setup it’s going to be slower than the Accord 2.0T; there’s just no way around the extra weight.
Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this so we can come back and see whether I’m more Nostradamus or if I’m more Homer Simpson.
https://acurazine.com/forums/second-.../#post16622034
But let’s expand on that. Assuming Acura made no updates to strengthen the drivetrain, for the SHAWD version I stand by my guess of 0-60 in 6.2, and guess a 5-60 of 6.6 and quarter-mile time of 14.7@97mph. If they did beef up the drivetrain and you can launch it with some gusto and without the ECU pulling power, then I guess 0-60 in 6.0, 5-60 in 6.5, and quarter mile of 14.4@100mph. All times are based on C&D testing procedures. Even with an ideal setup it’s going to be slower than the Accord 2.0T; there’s just no way around the extra weight.
Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this so we can come back and see whether I’m more Nostradamus or if I’m more Homer Simpson.
#173
I already did last month:
https://acurazine.com/forums/second-.../#post16622034
But let’s expand on that. Assuming Acura made no updates to strengthen the drivetrain, for the SHAWD version I stand by my guess of 0-60 in 6.2, and guess a 5-60 of 6.6 and quarter-mile time of 14.7@97mph. If they did beef up the drivetrain and you can launch it with some gusto and without the ECU pulling power, then I guess 0-60 in 6.0, 5-60 in 6.5, and quarter mile of 14.4@100mph. All times are based on C&D testing procedures. Even with an ideal setup it’s going to be slower than the Accord 2.0T; there’s just no way around the extra weight.
Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this so we can come back and see whether I’m more Nostradamus or if I’m more Homer Simpson.
https://acurazine.com/forums/second-.../#post16622034
But let’s expand on that. Assuming Acura made no updates to strengthen the drivetrain, for the SHAWD version I stand by my guess of 0-60 in 6.2, and guess a 5-60 of 6.6 and quarter-mile time of 14.7@97mph. If they did beef up the drivetrain and you can launch it with some gusto and without the ECU pulling power, then I guess 0-60 in 6.0, 5-60 in 6.5, and quarter mile of 14.4@100mph. All times are based on C&D testing procedures. Even with an ideal setup it’s going to be slower than the Accord 2.0T; there’s just no way around the extra weight.
Don’t worry, I’ll bookmark this so we can come back and see whether I’m more Nostradamus or if I’m more Homer Simpson.
#174
AZ Community Team
Yea, I think that's a bit too early to judge on what the car feels like inside, how it rides, how it handles, what the interior materials are like, NVH, etc. I think the whole point of them going with a heavily modified platform, designing a bespoke double wishbone suspension, etc, is to make the car feel more premium along with better handling.
And coming from a 3rd gen RDX, which has an interior on par with most competitors, the TLX seems to have taken it to another level higher. So I don't know, I think things look promising for the car. But gotta wait for reviews to have a better conclusion.
The weight specs of the TLX 2.0T have been released and the car is heavier by about 150lb or so.
And coming from a 3rd gen RDX, which has an interior on par with most competitors, the TLX seems to have taken it to another level higher. So I don't know, I think things look promising for the car. But gotta wait for reviews to have a better conclusion.
The weight specs of the TLX 2.0T have been released and the car is heavier by about 150lb or so.
![Werd](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
Will happen soon enough in a 2-3 weeks
Last edited by Legend2TL; 09-15-2020 at 07:09 AM.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (09-15-2020)
#175
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
The following users liked this post:
Neoforever (09-15-2020)
#176
That's good to hear you can admit you were wrong, where as most human beings cannot . It's nice to know your ego isn't as high as pikes peak. Like 99% of the people in society I run into egos are..
The following users liked this post:
Tony Pac (09-15-2020)
#177
Burning Brakes
Who really cares how fast the non type s is? Most people buying that car will not care that it gets to 60 in 6 seconds. The type S times are what matter.
#178
#179
I disagree with that statement. 45-50k dollars for the base car is not chicken feed and I'm sure most people would want to know how it performs. Sure, I would want the Type S,but not everyone has the 60K to drop on it.
#180
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
No but seriously, one of my pet peeves is when people double down even when they're categorically wrong. I will take any and all "in yo face, you were wrong ya loser" jeers and taunts. Deep down I actually do hope I'm wrong because I want Acura to, in the words of our first lady, "be best".
#181
Burning Brakes
Anybody who spends 45-50K on a base TLX is definitely on something. If you can afford a 50K car you can afford a 60K car the difference in payments is minimal in this range.
Last edited by Kense; 09-15-2020 at 02:49 PM.
#182
Burning Brakes
Nothing is 100 but I'd bet a large sum of money that most people buying the Non Type S base TLX do not care how fast it is, if they were car enthusiasts they would not be spending Low to mid 40's for something like that when they can get a Used F80 M3 or something much better and faster. You're talking money that will get you into used cars that are actually fast and more "prestigious" than an Acura.
#183
Nothing is 100 but I'd bet a large sum of money that most people buying the Non Type S base TLX do not care how fast it is, if they were car enthusiasts they would not be spending Low to mid 40's for something like that when they can get a Used F80 M3 or something much better and faster. You're talking money that will get you into used cars that are actually fast and more "prestigious" than an Acura.
#184
Burning Brakes
Well, $45k is not $50k (and $50k is not $60k) . And who evaluates cars prices on monthly payments (and is that 5 years or 7)?
The best Accord (with 2.0T, leather seats, NAV, and HUD) is $36k . Most nice (non premium) sedans are around $35k now-days. I know, it's crazy.
The 2021 TLX FWD is $37k .
But who really wants FWD on 18-inch wheels , no real leather, no on-board NAV, etc. on their new TLX ?
Even Acura knows "Tech Package" will be sales-leader. So for all that and SH-AWD, add $6,000 and you are at $43,000 .
But I do agree , it starts high for what it is. And by the time you equip it nicely ... you are in a segment where you have other choices.
Last edited by Tesla1856; 09-15-2020 at 03:58 PM.
#185
Burning Brakes
And unless you have $30k CASH lying around, how do you borrow that much money affordably ? (ie, the used car loan)
Just wondering.
#186
AZ Community Team
Having a little spare time on vacation this week, I calculated the potential launch acceleration of the
A) 2020 Accord 2.0T
B) 2020 RDX SHAWD
C) 2021 TLX SHAWD.
There are some problem with doing this are these and more
1) relying on Honda/Acura provided torque peak data, which is probably underestimated
2) assumes enough tire static coefficient of friction so no spin
3) FWD weight shift due to force torque moment of the vehicle
4) have no clue what the ECU is doing managing the drivetrain
5) no drivetrain loses number (close but almost certain it's not the same for all vehicles)
6) rotational inertia of the drivetrain, brakes, tire/wheels.
7) using the original Honda TLX press release weight
7).....
anyway from 0 MPH and 200lb for driver
Accord 1.098g
RDX 1.015g
TLX 1.014g
A) 2020 Accord 2.0T
B) 2020 RDX SHAWD
C) 2021 TLX SHAWD.
There are some problem with doing this are these and more
1) relying on Honda/Acura provided torque peak data, which is probably underestimated
2) assumes enough tire static coefficient of friction so no spin
3) FWD weight shift due to force torque moment of the vehicle
4) have no clue what the ECU is doing managing the drivetrain
5) no drivetrain loses number (close but almost certain it's not the same for all vehicles)
6) rotational inertia of the drivetrain, brakes, tire/wheels.
7) using the original Honda TLX press release weight
7).....
anyway from 0 MPH and 200lb for driver
Accord 1.098g
RDX 1.015g
TLX 1.014g
The following users liked this post:
iforyou (09-16-2020)
#187
Oh don't get me wrong, my ego is YUGGEE, just like my ween (sometimes, I flip it over to the inches side and pretend it's says cm if I want to be more modest). I'm just so confident that I'm right that I don't think I'll have to cash this check I'm writing. ![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
No but seriously, one of my pet peeves is when people double down even when they're categorically wrong. I will take any and all "in yo face, you were wrong ya loser" jeers and taunts. Deep down I actually do hope I'm wrong because I want Acura to, in the words of our first lady, "be best".
![Wink](https://acurazine.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
No but seriously, one of my pet peeves is when people double down even when they're categorically wrong. I will take any and all "in yo face, you were wrong ya loser" jeers and taunts. Deep down I actually do hope I'm wrong because I want Acura to, in the words of our first lady, "be best".
The following 2 users liked this post by lowgrowl:
a35tl (09-15-2020),
steve_97060 (09-15-2020)
#188
I'm pretty sure he's just parroting the same number that was being thrown around with nothing to back it up. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen him with something like a vbox or dragy hooked up to the car to get his own acceleration numbers. Consider that all other outfits have consistently found it to be in the 6.4-6.6 range.
MT: 6.4
C&D: 6.6
Automobile Mag: 6.4
Consumer Guide: 6.6
Motorweek: 6.5
Hondata: 6.46
This was the thread from 2 years ago when everyone was going gaga about how it'll have a 5.5 0-60 time because someone claimed it's 5.7s.
https://acurazine.com/forums/third-g...econds-970248/
Oh how wrong everyone was...
MT: 6.4
C&D: 6.6
Automobile Mag: 6.4
Consumer Guide: 6.6
Motorweek: 6.5
Hondata: 6.46
This was the thread from 2 years ago when everyone was going gaga about how it'll have a 5.5 0-60 time because someone claimed it's 5.7s.
https://acurazine.com/forums/third-g...econds-970248/
Oh how wrong everyone was...
He's also said in the past that the track is at 100-ft altitude, which should make a difference. Acura made a huge mistake by inviting all the car journalist to test drive the RDX in Whistler, which is at ~2500-ft altitude. The thin air in the mountains did no favors for the RDX's performance testing. Automotive media outlets are currently testing the new TLX in West Bloomfield, Michigan, which is about 900-ft. That might make a difference, but we'll see next week.
#189
I typically trust C&D and MotorTrend, and use C&D as my go-to source. But just to play devil's advocate, as per Alex-on-Auto's website... "all numbers are recorded on a 20Hz GPS accelerometer on a closed private course. Total elevation change in the 1/4 mile is 8 feet (uphill)."
He's also said in the past that the track is at 100-ft altitude, which should make a difference. Acura made a huge mistake by inviting all the car journalist to test drive the RDX in Whistler, which is at ~2500-ft altitude. The thin air in the mountains did no favors for the RDX's performance testing. Automotive media outlets are currently testing the new TLX in West Bloomfield, Michigan, which is about 900-ft. That might make a difference, but we'll see next week.
He's also said in the past that the track is at 100-ft altitude, which should make a difference. Acura made a huge mistake by inviting all the car journalist to test drive the RDX in Whistler, which is at ~2500-ft altitude. The thin air in the mountains did no favors for the RDX's performance testing. Automotive media outlets are currently testing the new TLX in West Bloomfield, Michigan, which is about 900-ft. That might make a difference, but we'll see next week.
#190
Instructor
If the car is slower then the V6 version, then it could be a deal breaker, esp for the price when you get the tech package, which is the min most people will get
The following users liked this post:
Neoforever (09-20-2020)
#191
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
I typically trust C&D and MotorTrend, and use C&D as my go-to source. But just to play devil's advocate, as per Alex-on-Auto's website... "all numbers are recorded on a 20Hz GPS accelerometer on a closed private course. Total elevation change in the 1/4 mile is 8 feet (uphill)."
He's also said in the past that the track is at 100-ft altitude, which should make a difference. Acura made a huge mistake by inviting all the car journalist to test drive the RDX in Whistler, which is at ~2500-ft altitude. The thin air in the mountains did no favors for the RDX's performance testing. Automotive media outlets are currently testing the new TLX in West Bloomfield, Michigan, which is about 900-ft. That might make a difference, but we'll see next week.
He's also said in the past that the track is at 100-ft altitude, which should make a difference. Acura made a huge mistake by inviting all the car journalist to test drive the RDX in Whistler, which is at ~2500-ft altitude. The thin air in the mountains did no favors for the RDX's performance testing. Automotive media outlets are currently testing the new TLX in West Bloomfield, Michigan, which is about 900-ft. That might make a difference, but we'll see next week.
#192
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 845 Likes
on
526 Posts
Haha guys just relax, no one knows for certain the actual performance figures. Will it be like the RDX where it would to 0-60mph in 6.5s, or would it be closer to the Accord that could do it in 5.3s. How will the lower final gear in the TLX going to affect the acceleration compared to the RDX? Will the ECU be limiting the power output like in the RDX?
Too many question marks for us to draw any conclusion right now.
Here are a few thoughts:
1. The TLX 2.0T has to be faster than the Accord 2.0T. They compete in totally different segments. The Accord 2.0T at this point is outperforming many 2,0T near luxury sedans anyway. We don't talk crap about these cars just because the Accord is faster.
2. The TLX would match the 0-60mph against most of its competitors since Honda traditionally does not allow for hard launches.
3. 0-60mph in 6.5s would be too slow. The 2.4 TLX can do it in 6.8s. The 3.5 TLX FWD in 5.7s, and 3.5 TLX AWD in 5.8s. I'd hope that the TLX 2.0T can be somewhere between 5.5 to 6s.
Too many question marks for us to draw any conclusion right now.
Here are a few thoughts:
1. The TLX 2.0T has to be faster than the Accord 2.0T. They compete in totally different segments. The Accord 2.0T at this point is outperforming many 2,0T near luxury sedans anyway. We don't talk crap about these cars just because the Accord is faster.
2. The TLX would match the 0-60mph against most of its competitors since Honda traditionally does not allow for hard launches.
3. 0-60mph in 6.5s would be too slow. The 2.4 TLX can do it in 6.8s. The 3.5 TLX FWD in 5.7s, and 3.5 TLX AWD in 5.8s. I'd hope that the TLX 2.0T can be somewhere between 5.5 to 6s.
#193
Burning Brakes
#194
Haha guys just relax, no one knows for certain the actual performance figures. Will it be like the RDX where it would to 0-60mph in 6.5s, or would it be closer to the Accord that could do it in 5.3s. How will the lower final gear in the TLX going to affect the acceleration compared to the RDX? Will the ECU be limiting the power output like in the RDX?
Too many question marks for us to draw any conclusion right now.
Here are a few thoughts:
1. The TLX 2.0T has to be faster than the Accord 2.0T. They compete in totally different segments. The Accord 2.0T at this point is outperforming many 2,0T near luxury sedans anyway. We don't talk crap about these cars just because the Accord is faster.
2. The TLX would match the 0-60mph against most of its competitors since Honda traditionally does not allow for hard launches.
3. 0-60mph in 6.5s would be too slow. The 2.4 TLX can do it in 6.8s. The 3.5 TLX FWD in 5.7s, and 3.5 TLX AWD in 5.8s. I'd hope that the TLX 2.0T can be somewhere between 5.5 to 6s.
Too many question marks for us to draw any conclusion right now.
Here are a few thoughts:
1. The TLX 2.0T has to be faster than the Accord 2.0T. They compete in totally different segments. The Accord 2.0T at this point is outperforming many 2,0T near luxury sedans anyway. We don't talk crap about these cars just because the Accord is faster.
2. The TLX would match the 0-60mph against most of its competitors since Honda traditionally does not allow for hard launches.
3. 0-60mph in 6.5s would be too slow. The 2.4 TLX can do it in 6.8s. The 3.5 TLX FWD in 5.7s, and 3.5 TLX AWD in 5.8s. I'd hope that the TLX 2.0T can be somewhere between 5.5 to 6s.
#195
#196
#197
Can you walk us through your thought process? What is the everything that you speak of? I thought your only rationale is “it would be embarrassing if it’s slower than the Accord”. That’s the everything?
#198
Burning Brakes
Last edited by pyrodan007; 09-16-2020 at 10:04 AM.
#199
The Giulia weighs 3600 lbs (about 400 less than TLX) and has more torque (306 vs 280). And yet the TLX will be faster than the Giulia (5.5s from C&D), and as fast as the lighter A4 (5.2). The TLX has more weight and more gears so I doubt it very much your time will be reality.
Though that said, the 5-60 time will still probably be slower due to the considerably weight difference.
The following users liked this post:
pyrodan007 (09-16-2020)
#200
Burning Brakes
This is not true. People who bought or have the V6 version expect this car to match it, without having to shell out a huge amount more to the Type-S
If the car is slower then the V6 version, then it could be a deal breaker, esp for the price when you get the tech package, which is the min most people will get
If the car is slower then the V6 version, then it could be a deal breaker, esp for the price when you get the tech package, which is the min most people will get
The following users liked this post:
Meyer (09-16-2020)