iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The problem is that the RDX as mentioned, is neutered to protect its AWD system. We know the Accord 2.0T performs really well with the same engine and 10AT.

MSZ

Buy the Accord and save yourself a crapload of money would be my advice.

fiatlux

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.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

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,

lowgrowl

Very true. The RDX is a small SUV and the TLX is a sedan. I don't think they will be similar in performance.

lowgrowl

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.

fiatlux

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.

lowgrowl

OK. Then you should be confident enough to make a prediction for the TLX 0-60 & 1/4 mile. So please do that.

fiatlux

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.

alpha0

I was watching 3rh gen RDX review by Alex on Autos, he was showing 0-60 in 5.7 (sh-awd version).

fiatlux

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...

lowgrowl

OK that's cool. But if it turns out to be Homer Simpson at the podium, please don't claim the tests were fake news like someone we're familiar with.LOL

dmski

If those numbers pan out, that's f*kn terrible. 1G TLX will smoke this thing as it hits low 14's in quarter mile.

Legend2TL

gotta wait for the reviews and see how the complete package drives and feels through acceleration, braking, handling, comfort, steering, transitions, system functions,......
Will happen soon enough in a 2-3 weeks

fiatlux

Not to worry, as long as the numbers aren’t the spoon fed estimates from Acura I’ll take my lumps. I’m not so deluded that I think I’m always right; I’m only just usually right .

lowgrowl

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..

Kense

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.

Speed Guy

I'm not sure that this is 100% correct, but I do think that the Type-S specs are what really matter here.

lowgrowl

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.

fiatlux

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.

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".

Kense

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.

Kense

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.

Speed Guy

For certain - I remember this post from the past years: https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/03/26/i...mance-bargain/

Tesla1856

Huh ?

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.

Tesla1856

Where are these (properly-maintained, single-owner, never wrecked) premium sedans selling for cheap, that you trust to be driven kinda hard and still be reliable (not a money pit)?
And unless you have $30k CASH lying around, how do you borrow that much money affordably ? (ie, the used car loan)

Just wondering.

Legend2TL

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

lowgrowl

Whew !!!! Thank you for letting me know just how blessed you are. I just couldn't live my life without knowing that !!!!!! You know every person I've met in my life with a monstrous ego was really incredibly insecure deep down inside. Just put on the TV. .

bilirubin

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.

fiatlux

At least for MT and C&D, I believe their numbers are from testing performed at their own facilities. And of course Hondata recorded this on their own car.

AcuraFan1980

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

BEAR-AvHistory

Just remember to add about 3/10's to any time listed because they use a 1 foot rollout.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

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.

Tesla1856

My (240hp) 2004 Accord-V6 FWD can do it in 7.2 . While is was $23k then, today it's worth about $4,000 .

That's some expensive speed (half a second).

lowgrowl

Taking everything into consideration, my thought out guess is 5.2 -5.3. .

bilirubin

Then what is your guess for the Type S?

lowgrowl

My guess based on what I've read and my gut instinct would be mid fours. I believe it will hold it's own in it's class. Despite what some people say here, it won't be a joke.

fiatlux

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?

pyrodan007

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 and DCT equipped A4 (5.2). The TLX has more weight and more gears so I doubt it very much your time will be reality.

fiatlux

Don't forget the A4 also has launch control, which the TLX does not appear to have.

Though that said, the 5-60 time will still probably be slower due to the considerably weight difference.

Kense

I said most people and most people driving a base TLX will be women or old people who don't care. That's who I see driving non A Specs now. What makes you think they care if a Base TLX is faster than the previous V6?