2021 Acura TLX Reviews **2024 TLX Reviews (starting page 70)**
10-01-2020, 12:08 AM
#1162
10-01-2020, 12:26 AM
#1163
Looks like this is 0.4s faster to 60 than the RDX, 0.5s faster 5-60, and and 0.4s faster in the quarter mile trapping 4mph higher (note that the RDX was tested to include the 1-ft rollout, whereas you have to add that manually to the times for the TLX).
Compared to the accord, it's 0.9s slower to 60, 0.6s slower 5-60, and 0.5s slower in the quarter mile. What this tells us is that compared to the Accord, the TLX is pulling power in the lower gears (especially at launch), which gets made up later on (hence why 5-60 isn't as bad as 0-60 even though it has AWD). Usually you see a huge advantage in the 0-60 times for AWD cars, and a much smaller advantage (or even a loss) in the 5-60 times compared to FWD/RWD cars.
Last edited by fiatlux; 10-01-2020 at 12:29 AM.
10-01-2020, 12:52 AM
#1164
Forgot to mention: compared to the 1G V6 SH-AWD:
0-60: 5.7s vs 6.2s (+0.5s)
0-100: 14.2s vs 15.6s (+1.4s)
5-60: 5.9s vs 6.5s (+0.6s)
30-50: 3.3s vs 3.7s (+0.4s)
50-70: 4.1s vs 4.7s (+0.6s)
1/4 mile: 14.2s @ 100mph 14.8s @ 97mph (+0.6s, -3mph)
70-0: 168ft vs 177ft (+9ft)
Skidpad: 0.86g vs 0.87g (+0.01g)
So from the looks of it: worse acceleration, worse power to weight ratio, worse stopping distance, but better SH-AWD system (enough to even make up for the lousy tires and extra weight).
I suspect with better tires it'll do at least 0.90g on the skidpad, but I'm not sure it'll help the acceleration numbers that much. Based on the 5-60 and trap speed, which don't depend much on traction/tires, it's just not putting down as much power as the old car.
Like I mentioned from my test drive, this car (like the RDX) just runs out of steam at the top end, and that really shows up in the performance numbers since the transmission will keep you in the upper end of the rev-band through most of the run. It's really not as slow as the numbers suggest; in higher gears under 5000RPMs it actually feels like it pulls harder.
0-60: 5.7s vs 6.2s (+0.5s)
0-100: 14.2s vs 15.6s (+1.4s)
5-60: 5.9s vs 6.5s (+0.6s)
30-50: 3.3s vs 3.7s (+0.4s)
50-70: 4.1s vs 4.7s (+0.6s)
1/4 mile: 14.2s @ 100mph 14.8s @ 97mph (+0.6s, -3mph)
70-0: 168ft vs 177ft (+9ft)
Skidpad: 0.86g vs 0.87g (+0.01g)
So from the looks of it: worse acceleration, worse power to weight ratio, worse stopping distance, but better SH-AWD system (enough to even make up for the lousy tires and extra weight).
I suspect with better tires it'll do at least 0.90g on the skidpad, but I'm not sure it'll help the acceleration numbers that much. Based on the 5-60 and trap speed, which don't depend much on traction/tires, it's just not putting down as much power as the old car.
Like I mentioned from my test drive, this car (like the RDX) just runs out of steam at the top end, and that really shows up in the performance numbers since the transmission will keep you in the upper end of the rev-band through most of the run. It's really not as slow as the numbers suggest; in higher gears under 5000RPMs it actually feels like it pulls harder.
Last edited by fiatlux; 10-01-2020 at 12:57 AM.
10-01-2020, 01:01 AM
#1165
Whoa, MT got significantly worse numbers from their tester
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/acur...k-test-review/
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/acur...k-test-review/
0-60: 7.0s
60-0: 127ft
MT Figure-8: 26.9s @ 0.64g
60-0: 127ft
MT Figure-8: 26.9s @ 0.64g
10-01-2020, 01:12 AM
#1166
Burning Brakes
Whoa, MT got significantly worse numbers from their tester
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/acur...k-test-review/
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/acur...k-test-review/
And again with the poor braking performance (AoA also mentioned that).
10-01-2020, 01:15 AM
#1167
It's funny, in the 1G TLX the braking was held back due to the crappy tires that came on the car. The stock brakes aren't that bad; the tires were just so traction-limited. Acura either didn't learn their lesson, or just didn't care about that.
10-01-2020, 01:45 AM
#1168
User Awaiting Email Confirmation
So, the 2G TLX performs about on par with what we thought. Quite a disparity from 5.9-7.0, which likely has to due with how much the ECU is pulling power to protect the drivetrain. I think C&D was likely modulating the pedal better rather than sticking the go-pedal to the floor and letting off the brake ... or who knows. That DWB isn't everything everyone was making it out to be, still coming in behind the 330i in both the skidpad and MT's figure-8 tests. 1/4 mile time is also quite a bit slower with a slower trap speed compared to the 330i. Just built both online with the way I'd have them if it were up to me with money not being an object and honestly building it to the functions I like and the looks I'd like ... forgetting about the aftermarket.
BMW 330i xDrive: $50,650 - Acura TLX Advance: $52,240
What ... the shit. BMW is a better deal than Acura? Hell has officially dropped below 32*F.
In Acura's defense, I added the full underbody kit, and with the black accents, it needed the black wheels otherwise it'd look like ass for a grand total of $3,440. But, on the other hand, I added the M-Sport Appearance package along with the Shadow Line to the Bimmer for $4,100. So, it actually cost me more to get the BMW to the appearance I'd take it as. All while still having all the features I'd want in it, including HUD and adaptive cruise. I think the only thing the BMW is missing is ventilated seats, but that's not even an option (poop). So, remove the appearance packaging and the Bimmer would actually be even cheaper. I'm sold ... if I see anyone in a 2G TLX, they're simply a Honda ballsack gargler. They'll think I'm checking out their new car, but I'll really just be seeing what kind of person could make such a moronic car buying decision, judging them with disgust. Paying more for an inferior vehicle ... Acura, you've truly made 2020 the worst year ever.
BMW 330i xDrive: $50,650 - Acura TLX Advance: $52,240
What ... the shit. BMW is a better deal than Acura? Hell has officially dropped below 32*F.
In Acura's defense, I added the full underbody kit, and with the black accents, it needed the black wheels otherwise it'd look like ass for a grand total of $3,440. But, on the other hand, I added the M-Sport Appearance package along with the Shadow Line to the Bimmer for $4,100. So, it actually cost me more to get the BMW to the appearance I'd take it as. All while still having all the features I'd want in it, including HUD and adaptive cruise. I think the only thing the BMW is missing is ventilated seats, but that's not even an option (poop). So, remove the appearance packaging and the Bimmer would actually be even cheaper. I'm sold ... if I see anyone in a 2G TLX, they're simply a Honda ballsack gargler. They'll think I'm checking out their new car, but I'll really just be seeing what kind of person could make such a moronic car buying decision, judging them with disgust. Paying more for an inferior vehicle ... Acura, you've truly made 2020 the worst year ever.
The following 6 users liked this post by leomio85:
04WDPSeDaN (10-01-2020),
ESHBG (10-01-2020),
Neoforever (10-01-2020),
pyrodan007 (10-01-2020),
SebringSilver (10-01-2020),
and 1 others liked this post.
10-01-2020, 01:49 AM
#1169
User Awaiting Email Confirmation
10-01-2020, 02:05 AM
#1171
The following users liked this post:
SebringSilver (10-01-2020)
10-01-2020, 02:10 AM
#1172
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,494
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
I went to one of the local dealerships today (OK local is a bit of a stretch but it was the only one within 50 miles to have a TLX on the lot) to test drive the new car. White SH-AWD Advanced. My impressions:
So what does this all mean? Well, for me the acceleration responsiveness thing isn't necessarily a deal-breaker because it seems to be a problem in just that one scenario (low speed cruising). Also, subpar 0-60 times I'm not too concerned about because the mid-range where you'll spend most of the time in the real world is strong. As a DD, I like this more than the J35, though at the track I'd prefer the J35. That said, the powertrain does feel average to slightly below average when compared to the competition. Yes, it makes the most advertised horsepower, but you wouldn't be able to tell by driving it. It just doesn't have that same sense of urgency or immediate power or oomph that the A4 and C300 has (haven't driven the new 330i yet). I still very much prefer the EA888 in the Audi. On the other hand, there's a lot to like about the rest of the car. As a car, it's pretty great. Even the backseat is OK; if you were OK with the 1G TLX, then you'll be OK with this. But would I buy it? If the powertrain performed as well as it does in the Accord 2.0T, yes. But unfortunately, the powertrain is just not up to par. It's a bummer, because I really do like the rest of the car save for the weight. It does so many things so well, and maybe my standards for performance are just unrealistically high, but if they could just replace this powertrain with the Audi's, it would be a no-brainer. As it currently stands...it's a good to great car, but as a sports sedan it's a mixed bag.
- Not a fan of the Platinum White Pearl. I think Modern Steel Metallic or Apex Blue would look much better, but unfortunately the only ones they had on the lot were white.
- The car looks noticeably bigger. I keep seeing the word "presence" being thrown around...I suppose that's one way to look at it. From the rear it doesn't actually look that big or wide, but from the front it definitely looks like it's a class bigger than the competition.
- Interior of the Advanced package is really nice. They also had an A-Spec model with the red interior. Even in person I'm still not a fan of that red. But back to the Advanced interior, the materials all felt high quality and there was plenty of soft-touch stuff going on. The "leather" stitched dash actually feels higher quality than the real leather stitched dash in my Volvo. This isn't like a Hyundai interior that looks nice, but feels cheap. I know it's subjective, but other than the gauge cluster and infotainment system, I like this interior more than A4, 3-series, C-Class, and S60. It just feels more inviting.
- The MID in the middle is larger than I had thought, but I still wish they would have went with a fully digital dash.
- Infotainment feels a little snappier than in the RDX loaners I've had, but I'm still not a fan of the truetouch trackpad. I would take any of the competitors infotainment system (except for Lexus) over this one.
- With the front seat adjusted for my height, rear legroom is virtually identical to that of the 1G. I can confirm that you can indeed move the front seat farther back than in the 1G. Rear legroom is terrible for its size, but it's about average when compared against the competition, just like for the 1G.
- Steering feel is great, turn-in is sharp and immediate, they did a good job with the steering responsiveness.
- On simple turns, the SH-AWD does a great job of providing power-on traction. Tires would squeal like a pig even though I wasn't driving that aggressively, but the frontend never felt like it was going to wash out. SH-AWD good, tires bad bad bad.
- On complex turns like an S or chicane, you really feel the weight of the car as it shifts around. The car doesn't feel unsettled, but you definitely feel more pronounced body roll. SH-AWD might be able to work its magic pulling you through a corner, but it can't beat physics when it comes to weight transfer.
- In comfort mode, the suspension is supple and compliant. Not as soft as an ES350, but definitely softer than stock 1G ride. In sport mode, the suspension is firmed up noticeably, but I wish it were a bit firmer to help remove some of that body roll. Sport feels about as firm as the normal setting in my Volvo.
- The pumped in engine noises...I'm conflicted. It doesn't sound bad...but it definitely sounds artificial.
- The braking feel is really really good. Pedal travel is very short, almost like in an EV where the regen braking kicks in immediately when you press down on the brakes. Some might complain about it being touchy, but once you get used to it, going back to a regular braking setup is quite jarring how deep into the pedal travel you have to go before the brakes actually engage. I'm a big fan of this setup.
- ELS system is good I guess. I'm not an audiophile so all this stuff is wasted on me. I can tell it's not bad, but I can't tell you how good it is.
- Road and wind noise is about the same as the 1G TLX, which is quite good.
- Over bumps and imperfections in the road, the car feels very solid, very European. Very 1G TLX like.
- When you cruising along at slower speeds and mash the gas pedal, there indeed is quite a noticeable delay before the car actually accelerates forward, and for the first split second it really feels like either power is being pulled or something is slipping
. - If you use the paddle shifters to get yourself into the right gear, there's no delay, although it doesn't feel like you have the full allotment of power immediately
- If you're cruising at highway speeds when you mash the gas pedal, the transmission responds much quicker and the acceleration feels stronger.
- In all other situations, the 10AT feels way better than the ZF9.
- As I expected, the car pulls hard when everything is lined up (i.e. you're in the right gear, you're under 5000RPMs, etc.)
- Turbo lag is minimal, mid-range torque is great, but the small turbo runs out of steam starting around 5000RPMs just like in the RDX.
- Upshifts are fast, but the transmission doesn't respond to the paddles as quickly as I'd like, and downshifts are a little slow.
So what does this all mean? Well, for me the acceleration responsiveness thing isn't necessarily a deal-breaker because it seems to be a problem in just that one scenario (low speed cruising). Also, subpar 0-60 times I'm not too concerned about because the mid-range where you'll spend most of the time in the real world is strong. As a DD, I like this more than the J35, though at the track I'd prefer the J35. That said, the powertrain does feel average to slightly below average when compared to the competition. Yes, it makes the most advertised horsepower, but you wouldn't be able to tell by driving it. It just doesn't have that same sense of urgency or immediate power or oomph that the A4 and C300 has (haven't driven the new 330i yet). I still very much prefer the EA888 in the Audi. On the other hand, there's a lot to like about the rest of the car. As a car, it's pretty great. Even the backseat is OK; if you were OK with the 1G TLX, then you'll be OK with this. But would I buy it? If the powertrain performed as well as it does in the Accord 2.0T, yes. But unfortunately, the powertrain is just not up to par. It's a bummer, because I really do like the rest of the car save for the weight. It does so many things so well, and maybe my standards for performance are just unrealistically high, but if they could just replace this powertrain with the Audi's, it would be a no-brainer. As it currently stands...it's a good to great car, but as a sports sedan it's a mixed bag.
Thanks for the review fiatlux. Customers will vote with their wallet. If this car was priced like the 1G it would probably move the needle a bit, however, with the price increase it will probably just sustain sales of 1G. I really don't see this car taking away sales from other brands.
So, going for a test drive soon.
I need to know how to set the TLX for the best throttle response, fastest transmission shifting, best steering, surest SH-AWD, and firmest suspension.
Do I just turn the Dynamic Mode knob to Sport (and that sets everything possible to best/Sport)?
So if you like everything Sport, then Individual Mode is really only for changing the associated Lighting-color ?
Am I correct that Sport-Mode also turns-off Auto Idle Stop? (I should see a circled-A-OFF in instrument panel)
Anything else?
I need to know how to set the TLX for the best throttle response, fastest transmission shifting, best steering, surest SH-AWD, and firmest suspension.
Do I just turn the Dynamic Mode knob to Sport (and that sets everything possible to best/Sport)?
So if you like everything Sport, then Individual Mode is really only for changing the associated Lighting-color ?
Am I correct that Sport-Mode also turns-off Auto Idle Stop? (I should see a circled-A-OFF in instrument panel)
Anything else?
Interesting that Alex on Autos, who does very thorough and objective reviews made a few errors in his TLX review. He reported a 0-60 time of 5.7 seconds, which seems inconsistent with other reported times. He also mentioned at the end that, unlike other competitors, Acura didn't use real wood or metal in the interior, which is certainly not correct.
The thing he mentioned multiple times was how much fun it was to drive.
The thing he mentioned multiple times was how much fun it was to drive.
Jeff, the owner of Temple of VTEC, also got 5.9s. So 5.7s isn't as crazy as one might think.
In Acura's defense, is this Honda's software or Apple's? It seems kind of weird that once you bring up Apple car play, suddenly it's no longer true touch, but more like a laptop cursor. I dunno ... either way, I rarely use the deng thing and usually shut the screen off once I set what I need to preserve the LCD screen from burnout.
Great find!
Looks like this is 0.4s faster to 60 than the RDX, 0.5s faster 5-60, and and 0.4s faster in the quarter mile trapping 4mph higher (note that the RDX was tested to include the 1-ft rollout, whereas you have to add that manually to the times for the TLX).
Compared to the accord, it's 0.9s slower to 60, 0.6s slower 5-60, and 0.5s slower in the quarter mile. What this tells us is that compared to the Accord, the TLX is pulling power in the lower gears (especially at launch), which gets made up later on (hence why 5-60 isn't as bad as 0-60 even though it has AWD). Usually you see a huge advantage in the 0-60 times for AWD cars, and a much smaller advantage (or even a loss) in the 5-60 times compared to FWD/RWD cars.
Looks like this is 0.4s faster to 60 than the RDX, 0.5s faster 5-60, and and 0.4s faster in the quarter mile trapping 4mph higher (note that the RDX was tested to include the 1-ft rollout, whereas you have to add that manually to the times for the TLX).
Compared to the accord, it's 0.9s slower to 60, 0.6s slower 5-60, and 0.5s slower in the quarter mile. What this tells us is that compared to the Accord, the TLX is pulling power in the lower gears (especially at launch), which gets made up later on (hence why 5-60 isn't as bad as 0-60 even though it has AWD). Usually you see a huge advantage in the 0-60 times for AWD cars, and a much smaller advantage (or even a loss) in the 5-60 times compared to FWD/RWD cars.
Forgot to mention: compared to the 1G V6 SH-AWD:
0-60: 5.7s vs 6.2s (+0.5s)
0-100: 14.2s vs 15.6s (+1.4s)
5-60: 5.9s vs 6.5s (+0.6s)
30-50: 3.3s vs 3.7s (+0.4s)
50-70: 4.1s vs 4.7s (+0.6s)
1/4 mile: 14.2s @ 100mph 14.8s @ 97mph (+0.6s, -3mph)
70-0: 168ft vs 177ft (+9ft)
Skidpad: 0.86g vs 0.87g (+0.01g)
So from the looks of it: worse acceleration, worse power to weight ratio, worse stopping distance, but better SH-AWD system (enough to even make up for the lousy tires and extra weight).
I suspect with better tires it'll do at least 0.90g on the skidpad, but I'm not sure it'll help the acceleration numbers that much. Based on the 5-60 and trap speed, which don't depend much on traction/tires, it's just not putting down as much power as the old car.
Like I mentioned from my test drive, this car (like the RDX) just runs out of steam at the top end, and that really shows up in the performance numbers since the transmission will keep you in the upper end of the rev-band through most of the run. It's really not as slow as the numbers suggest; in higher gears under 5000RPMs it actually feels like it pulls harder.
0-60: 5.7s vs 6.2s (+0.5s)
0-100: 14.2s vs 15.6s (+1.4s)
5-60: 5.9s vs 6.5s (+0.6s)
30-50: 3.3s vs 3.7s (+0.4s)
50-70: 4.1s vs 4.7s (+0.6s)
1/4 mile: 14.2s @ 100mph 14.8s @ 97mph (+0.6s, -3mph)
70-0: 168ft vs 177ft (+9ft)
Skidpad: 0.86g vs 0.87g (+0.01g)
So from the looks of it: worse acceleration, worse power to weight ratio, worse stopping distance, but better SH-AWD system (enough to even make up for the lousy tires and extra weight).
I suspect with better tires it'll do at least 0.90g on the skidpad, but I'm not sure it'll help the acceleration numbers that much. Based on the 5-60 and trap speed, which don't depend much on traction/tires, it's just not putting down as much power as the old car.
Like I mentioned from my test drive, this car (like the RDX) just runs out of steam at the top end, and that really shows up in the performance numbers since the transmission will keep you in the upper end of the rev-band through most of the run. It's really not as slow as the numbers suggest; in higher gears under 5000RPMs it actually feels like it pulls harder.
What it means is that, Car and Driver had been SUBTRACTING about 0.3s from their 0-60mph times. So for the Accord you mentioned. C/D posted its 0-60mph as 5.7s when new, and 5.3s after 40000 miles. The actual times that C/D got were 6s and 5.6s. They just then minus 0.3s to get 5.7s and 5.3s respectively.
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...hange-rollout/
As such, you do not need to make any further correction.
So here's the deal.
Accord 2.0T 10AT (new)
0-60mph: 5.7s
5-60mph: 6.4s
1/4 mile: 14.3@100mph
TLX 2.0T AWD
0-60mph: 5.9s
5-60mph: 6.5s
1/4 mile: 14.5@97mph
Old TLX V6 AWD:
0-60mph: 5.8s
5-60mph: 6.2s
1/4 mile: 14.2@100mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...d-test-review/
Old TLX V6 A-Spec AWD:
0-60mph: 5.7s
5-60mph: 5.9s
1/4 mile: 14.2@100mph
A4 2.0T AWD:
0-60mph: 5.2s
5-60mph: 6.0s
1/4 mile: 13.9@100mph
C300 AWD:
0-60mph: 6.1s
5-60mph: 7.1s
1/4 mile: 14.6@96mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...c-test-review/
M330i AWD:
0-60mph: 5.2s
5-60mph: 6.4s
1/4 mile: 13.9@100mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/
G70 2.0T RWD:
0-60mph: 6.4s
5-60mph: 7.0s
1/4 mile: 14.9@96mph
S60 T5 FWD:
0-60mph: 6.1s
5-60mph: 7.0s
1/4 mile: 14.6@98mph
10-01-2020, 05:42 AM
#1173
Moderator
10-01-2020, 08:35 AM
#1174
10-01-2020, 09:36 AM
#1175
Moderator
Or maybe Alex has some launch secrets he's not talking about. I'd be interested to see what 5 - 60 times they can all get.
10-01-2020, 10:41 AM
#1176
Burning Brakes
10-01-2020, 10:52 AM
#1177
You actually don't need to account for the 1-ft roll out for all the previous tests. As per Car and Driver, "the industry standard calls for a one-foot rollout before a timed run begins. Our old test equipment couldn't measure that precisely, so we approximated a foot by beginning our runs at 3 mph....Obviously, this affects the elapsed time, sometimes by as much as 0.3 second. Our testing now adopts the industry-standard one-foot rollout."
What it means is that, Car and Driver had been SUBTRACTING about 0.3s from their 0-60mph times. So for the Accord you mentioned. C/D posted its 0-60mph as 5.7s when new, and 5.3s after 40000 miles. The actual times that C/D got were 6s and 5.6s. They just then minus 0.3s to get 5.7s and 5.3s respectively.
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...hange-rollout/
As such, you do not need to make any further correction.
What it means is that, Car and Driver had been SUBTRACTING about 0.3s from their 0-60mph times. So for the Accord you mentioned. C/D posted its 0-60mph as 5.7s when new, and 5.3s after 40000 miles. The actual times that C/D got were 6s and 5.6s. They just then minus 0.3s to get 5.7s and 5.3s respectively.
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...hange-rollout/
As such, you do not need to make any further correction.
They now subtract the rollout time. Which they didn't before. So you'd add the 0.3s to 2021 TLX to compare with older tests.
10-01-2020, 12:03 PM
#1178
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
FWIW...Have run the Dragy on a number of cars & the roll-out is pretty consistent at .3 So if you want to compare old tests to new I would use that number
10-01-2020, 02:02 PM
#1179
not superchaged
The TLX 2.0T is not only slower than the Accord from 0-60 but it's also slower from 30-50 and from 50-70 it seems.
I think at this point the TLX 2.0T is just not a performance minded car and it's probably OK for most of its buyers.
I think at this point the TLX 2.0T is just not a performance minded car and it's probably OK for most of its buyers.
10-01-2020, 02:57 PM
#1180
Moderator
No politics or any politicaly related posts allowed in here. Nothing but car talk!
10-01-2020, 04:02 PM
#1181
Three Wheelin'
For comparison's sake the new MDX is now going to be considered their flagship vehicle:
"The full debut of the prototype happens pretty soon on October 14. Acura says the fourth-gen MDX takes "the mantle as the brand’s new flagship model," which feels like a put down towards the NSX."
https://www.motor1.com/news/446772/n...ser-image/amp/
"The full debut of the prototype happens pretty soon on October 14. Acura says the fourth-gen MDX takes "the mantle as the brand’s new flagship model," which feels like a put down towards the NSX."
https://www.motor1.com/news/446772/n...ser-image/amp/
The following users liked this post:
Tesla1856 (10-01-2020)
10-01-2020, 04:14 PM
#1182
User Awaiting Email Confirmation
For comparison's sake the new MDX is now going to be considered their flagship vehicle:
"The full debut of the prototype happens pretty soon on October 14. Acura says the fourth-gen MDX takes "the mantle as the brand’s new flagship model," which feels like a put down towards the NSX."
https://www.motor1.com/news/446772/n...ser-image/amp/
"The full debut of the prototype happens pretty soon on October 14. Acura says the fourth-gen MDX takes "the mantle as the brand’s new flagship model," which feels like a put down towards the NSX."
https://www.motor1.com/news/446772/n...ser-image/amp/
It's longer, lower, and wider than the current MDX.
.... and following the TLX's footsteps, has less room inside.Sorry, I couldn't resist ...
And it may be splitting hairs, but the MDX had to take the place of "flagship" status with the axing of the RLX. The NSX is Acura's 'halo car'. 'Flagship' is more the biggest, most luxurious model they have. That can only really be the MDX at this point.
Last edited by leomio85; 10-01-2020 at 04:19 PM.
10-01-2020, 04:15 PM
#1183
The following 2 users liked this post by fiatlux:
pyrodan007 (10-01-2020),
Tesla1856 (10-01-2020)
10-01-2020, 04:17 PM
#1184
Burning Brakes
For comparison's sake the new MDX is now going to be considered their flagship vehicle:
"The full debut of the prototype happens pretty soon on October 14. Acura says the fourth-gen MDX takes "the mantle as the brand’s new flagship model," which feels like a put down towards the NSX."
https://www.motor1.com/news/446772/n...ser-image/amp/
"The full debut of the prototype happens pretty soon on October 14. Acura says the fourth-gen MDX takes "the mantle as the brand’s new flagship model," which feels like a put down towards the NSX."
https://www.motor1.com/news/446772/n...ser-image/amp/
Also saw this ... "It's longer, lower, and wider than the current MDX".
The 2014-MDX BARELY fit in our garage as it was ... both length-wise and "try not to bang-the-door" on the other car side-ways.
10-01-2020, 04:21 PM
#1185
Burning Brakes
10-01-2020, 04:26 PM
#1186
User Awaiting Email Confirmation
10-01-2020, 04:27 PM
#1187
Lower...because that's what everyone wants in a crossover...
A Porsche or a high performance crossover, I can see customers wanting it to be lower. But unless they plan on giving this car 400 horses...who decided that would be a good idea? If I'm buying a mid-size crossover to drive family around, I want superior ground clearance. I want more cupholders, more USB ports, more storage space, more towing capacity, a bigger fuel tank, etc. If I wanted the ride height of a passenger car, I'd buy a minivan.
A Porsche or a high performance crossover, I can see customers wanting it to be lower. But unless they plan on giving this car 400 horses...who decided that would be a good idea? If I'm buying a mid-size crossover to drive family around, I want superior ground clearance. I want more cupholders, more USB ports, more storage space, more towing capacity, a bigger fuel tank, etc. If I wanted the ride height of a passenger car, I'd buy a minivan.
10-01-2020, 04:45 PM
#1188
User Awaiting Email Confirmation
Wait, is the MDX getting the same 2.0T powerplant?
10-01-2020, 04:58 PM
#1189
That's what I would expect, since most of the competition has moved to 2.0T being the base model. I expect Honda to start phasing out the J35 in the Passport, Pilot, Odyssey, and Ridgeline as well, seeing as how the Accord, RLX (RIP), RDX, and TLX have already moved away from it. Toyota is switching to a 2.5L hybrid as the sole engine choice for the Sienna. As much as I like how fast the Odyssey is, I imagine most people buying minivans are going to like the MPGs that the Sienna has, and so I expect the 6G Odyssey to lose the V6.
Last edited by fiatlux; 10-01-2020 at 05:01 PM.
10-01-2020, 05:18 PM
#1190
I suspect they'll send the cars out to them rather than invite them to an event. These types of invited events serve to provide media access to these cars in a controlled (and somewhat limited) environment. They don't get the opportunity to take them back to their test track to do a whole bevy of controlled tests and runs. My guess is that Acura knows this car will drive and feel better than the numbers would suggest (this is what also happened to the RDX), so they want the First Drive and Initial Impression narratives to be about how great the car drives and how Acura has re-found the magic, and have the relatively underwhelming numbers come out later once the spotlight has lifted a bit.
Both MT and C&D coincidentally released the numbers at midnight exactly 1 week after the review embargo was lifted? Naw, the timing was most definitely planned out by Acura. I bet the test numbers had a separate embargo. They knew the numbers were going to be bad despite the car driving well.
The following users liked this post:
leomio85 (10-01-2020)
10-01-2020, 06:03 PM
#1191
I don't care how Acura spins this, the car is a MAJOR disappointment. For God's sake, this thing can't even take on an Odyssey. Yes, the interior is better, so what. Remember their slogan ' PRECISION CRAFTED PERFORMANCE'... what a joke. Also, if they put that 2.0T in an MDX that will just put the cherry on top confirming how dumb Acura and their Management is.
The following 4 users liked this post by dmski:
10-01-2020, 06:18 PM
#1192
Three Wheelin'
Lower...because that's what everyone wants in a crossover...
A Porsche or a high performance crossover, I can see customers wanting it to be lower. But unless they plan on giving this car 400 horses...who decided that would be a good idea? If I'm buying a mid-size crossover to drive family around, I want superior ground clearance. I want more cupholders, more USB ports, more storage space, more towing capacity, a bigger fuel tank, etc. If I wanted the ride height of a passenger car, I'd buy a minivan.
A Porsche or a high performance crossover, I can see customers wanting it to be lower. But unless they plan on giving this car 400 horses...who decided that would be a good idea? If I'm buying a mid-size crossover to drive family around, I want superior ground clearance. I want more cupholders, more USB ports, more storage space, more towing capacity, a bigger fuel tank, etc. If I wanted the ride height of a passenger car, I'd buy a minivan.
It’s like they want the new MDX to compete with a Q7 as well as a Q8. The TLX theoretically competes with both a 3 Series and a 5 Series (their words, not mine). It’s always a compromise. Can’t afford an E class but don’t want a C class? Here, have a TLX!! No hope in hell of getting a 918? Buy an NSX! It’s always compromise compromise compromise. They perpetually fail to come up with the one thing that makes car buyers say “I want that because it’s the best.” As a long time customer, I wish they could just deliver one car that is the “best in class”.
Last edited by SebringSilver; 10-01-2020 at 06:30 PM.
The following users liked this post:
ESHBG (10-01-2020)
10-01-2020, 06:42 PM
#1194
User Awaiting Email Confirmation
Ah, I almost forgot about this. Can't forget to thump my chest about this.
Both MT and C&D coincidentally released the numbers at midnight exactly 1 week after the review embargo was lifted? Naw, the timing was most definitely planned out by Acura. I bet the test numbers had a separate embargo. They knew the numbers were going to be bad despite the car driving well.
Both MT and C&D coincidentally released the numbers at midnight exactly 1 week after the review embargo was lifted? Naw, the timing was most definitely planned out by Acura. I bet the test numbers had a separate embargo. They knew the numbers were going to be bad despite the car driving well.
I just don't get Acura. It's like they wanted the TLX to fail. Bring out a decent product, but slap it with a hefty price increase without much to show for it. You're getting similar performance with less usability as the 3G RDX, all while spending more money. Is this their master plan? Let the TLX sales drop to the point where they can kill it off without angering the diehards and saying, "Look, we gave it a chance but sales didn't justify keeping it around." I tend not to think so seeing as they're making a Type-S. Unless maybe that was just a hype-mobile that's never going to be released? Kind of like the Cadillac CT4-V and CT5-V Blackwing that has been delayed again and many believe is already dead in the water? I dunno ... this tinfoil hat sure is itchy though.
The following users liked this post:
ESHBG (10-01-2020)
10-01-2020, 06:44 PM
#1195
Suzuka Master
Forgot to mention: compared to the 1G V6 SH-AWD:
0-60: 5.7s vs 6.2s (+0.5s)
0-100: 14.2s vs 15.6s (+1.4s)
5-60: 5.9s vs 6.5s (+0.6s)
30-50: 3.3s vs 3.7s (+0.4s)
50-70: 4.1s vs 4.7s (+0.6s)
1/4 mile: 14.2s @ 100mph 14.8s @ 97mph (+0.6s, -3mph)
70-0: 168ft vs 177ft (+9ft)
Skidpad: 0.86g vs 0.87g (+0.01g)
So from the looks of it: worse acceleration, worse power to weight ratio, worse stopping distance, but better SH-AWD system (enough to even make up for the lousy tires and extra weight).
I suspect with better tires it'll do at least 0.90g on the skidpad, but I'm not sure it'll help the acceleration numbers that much. Based on the 5-60 and trap speed, which don't depend much on traction/tires, it's just not putting down as much power as the old car.
Like I mentioned from my test drive, this car (like the RDX) just runs out of steam at the top end, and that really shows up in the performance numbers since the transmission will keep you in the upper end of the rev-band through most of the run. It's really not as slow as the numbers suggest; in higher gears under 5000RPMs it actually feels like it pulls harder.
0-60: 5.7s vs 6.2s (+0.5s)
0-100: 14.2s vs 15.6s (+1.4s)
5-60: 5.9s vs 6.5s (+0.6s)
30-50: 3.3s vs 3.7s (+0.4s)
50-70: 4.1s vs 4.7s (+0.6s)
1/4 mile: 14.2s @ 100mph 14.8s @ 97mph (+0.6s, -3mph)
70-0: 168ft vs 177ft (+9ft)
Skidpad: 0.86g vs 0.87g (+0.01g)
So from the looks of it: worse acceleration, worse power to weight ratio, worse stopping distance, but better SH-AWD system (enough to even make up for the lousy tires and extra weight).
I suspect with better tires it'll do at least 0.90g on the skidpad, but I'm not sure it'll help the acceleration numbers that much. Based on the 5-60 and trap speed, which don't depend much on traction/tires, it's just not putting down as much power as the old car.
Like I mentioned from my test drive, this car (like the RDX) just runs out of steam at the top end, and that really shows up in the performance numbers since the transmission will keep you in the upper end of the rev-band through most of the run. It's really not as slow as the numbers suggest; in higher gears under 5000RPMs it actually feels like it pulls harder.
10-01-2020, 06:46 PM
#1196
I don't care how Acura spins this, the car is a MAJOR disappointment. For God's sake, this thing can't even take on an Odyssey. Yes, the interior is better, so what. Remember their slogan ' PRECISION CRAFTED PERFORMANCE'... what a joke. Also, if they put that 2.0T in an MDX that will just put the cherry on top confirming how dumb Acura and their Management is.
Was that so difficult? You're welcome Acura.
Last edited by Carnage719; 10-01-2020 at 06:50 PM.
10-01-2020, 06:54 PM
#1197
User Awaiting Email Confirmation
Agreed. Honda/Acura had the 2.0T in the Accord and in the RDX. It also has it in the Type-R with a higher state of tune. Once Acura decided to increase the size, and therefore, the weight of the TLX, they knew the new TLX would perform nearly identical to RDX, and lacking compared to the Accord. Solution? Standard tune 2.0T in the Base, Type-R tune in the A-Spec, and Type-R tune as an option on the Advance.
Was that so difficult? You're welcome Acura.
Was that so difficult? You're welcome Acura.
The following users liked this post:
04WDPSeDaN (10-01-2020)
10-01-2020, 07:05 PM
#1199
Alex had a good video explaining how SH-AWD works:
10-01-2020, 07:10 PM
#1200
