2021 Acura TLX vs The Competition
#521
When I tested the S5, which is on my short list while it sounded nice it was a little too pumped in which can get annoying. Also the S5 exhaust note on WOT is pretty muted on the outside, which further leads me to belive the exhaust note is not as aggressive as we would hear in the interior. Another factor to keep in mind is sound deadening which I'm sure the Acura has more of being a newer generation vechicle.
#522
#523
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
I think the S4 has more pumped in noise whereas the Acura is relying on engine sound induced through cabin, the press release talked about the active sound vibration being used as well
When I tested the S5, which is on my short list while it sounded nice it was a little too pumped in which can get annoying. Also the S5 exhaust note on WOT is pretty muted on the outside, which further leads me to belive the exhaust note is not as aggressive as we would hear in the interior. Another factor to keep in mind is sound deadening which I'm sure the Acura has more of being a newer generation vechicle.
When I tested the S5, which is on my short list while it sounded nice it was a little too pumped in which can get annoying. Also the S5 exhaust note on WOT is pretty muted on the outside, which further leads me to belive the exhaust note is not as aggressive as we would hear in the interior. Another factor to keep in mind is sound deadening which I'm sure the Acura has more of being a newer generation vechicle.
BTW don't know about Audi but the piped in sound on mine will vary with drive mode & it can be shut down completely.
#525
Styl1n
This was pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JFW2f12kv0
The BMW is a beasts...wow! It legit flies.
The BMW is a beasts...wow! It legit flies.
"So little funny story, on the highway today cruising like usual and a G70 3.3T comes and start tailing me hard so switched lanes and didn’t bother to look who it is….some traffic builds, everyone is doing around 50 then it opens up again so I see him cut lanes and speeds up next to me…passes and I said I gotta buy gas today any so what the hell I let a rip……when I said he was left behind he was left by at least 15 cars…..probably didn’t know I was tuned and running E40 😊 he came next to me gave me a look and floor it was on his way…..overall it looks like a nice car the front and back."
The following 2 users liked this post by kuzdu:
BEAR-AvHistory (06-04-2021),
Tony Pac (06-04-2021)
#526
Senior Moderator
This was pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JFW2f12kv0
The BMW is a beasts...wow! It legit flies.
The BMW is a beasts...wow! It legit flies.
Last edited by F23A4; 06-04-2021 at 02:54 PM.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (06-04-2021)
#528
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
This was pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JFW2f12kv0
The BMW is a beasts...wow! It legit flies.
The BMW is a beasts...wow! It legit flies.
BTW more on BS power ratings. BMW even does it to itself.
This car is the 340BHP Euro Spec version not the USA 382BHP. Expect a bit more power could knock a few tenths off the time & move up to second place?
NOTE the driver that set the top time for the M2 CS also drove the Z4
BMW M2 CS (F87) Christian Gebhardt 7:42.99
BMW M2 Competition (F87) unknown 7:52.36
BMW Z4 M40i (G29) Christian Gebhardt 7:55.41
BMW M2 (F87) unknown 7:58.00
BMW M2 unknown 8:01.00
BMW M2 unknown 8:05.00
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 06-04-2021 at 12:11 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Tony Pac (06-04-2021)
#530
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
There is a bit of debate among the guys but a DynoJet reported 399 to the wheels of a Supra that runs the same 382BHP engine. I have seen logs that range from 380 to 399 at the wheels. For a rough comparison, as you cant really match dyno runs against each other for an exact number.
My 2011 335is 7DCT dynoed on a DynoJet after some JB4 testing @ 410WHP. It was about 3 tenths slower in the quarter mile with almost the same terminal speed, 115mph, as the current M340 & Z4 M40i.
Current cars have much better tires & an LSD which should account for the quicker times as I had to start in 2nd gear to maintain traction.
Should have added on the M2CS vs Z M40. The euro spec Z4 is giving away 104BHP according to BMW's specs.
My 2011 335is 7DCT dynoed on a DynoJet after some JB4 testing @ 410WHP. It was about 3 tenths slower in the quarter mile with almost the same terminal speed, 115mph, as the current M340 & Z4 M40i.
Current cars have much better tires & an LSD which should account for the quicker times as I had to start in 2nd gear to maintain traction.
Should have added on the M2CS vs Z M40. The euro spec Z4 is giving away 104BHP according to BMW's specs.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 06-04-2021 at 12:41 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Tony Pac (06-04-2021)
#531
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,469
Received 1,619 Likes
on
976 Posts
So VW is making the Areton sleeker and better looking than Audi A4, A5 and A6! I mean in terms of look, it beats any Audi but definitely material, power and the prestige of a luxury car are missing. VW can make this a competitor to TLX and G70. This is a great looking car! No doubt about it.
#532
how about this.. BMW, Audi and Mercedes are better. There can we move on from that now?
#533
Senior Moderator
#534
Whoda thunk that a car with the same engine and trans but with more weight and more drivetrain losses would be slower.
I will give Honda credit for this: at least they didn't nerf the Accord 2.0T in order to protect the TLX.
I will give Honda credit for this: at least they didn't nerf the Accord 2.0T in order to protect the TLX.
The following users liked this post:
F23A4 (06-14-2021)
#535
so if the S4 is generally regarded the worst of its class then what does it make the G70? embarrassing that the G70 loses to an antiquated S4... therefore using Acurazine logic, no one should be foolish enough to by a G70.
#536
The following users liked this post:
loki (06-14-2021)
#537
Senior Moderator
That 'additional 20hp and 7lb-ft' is completely negated by the addtional 562lbs that the TLX A-Spec SH-AWD carries over the Accord Touring, let alone the additional drivetrain losses that come with SH-AWD.
The following 2 users liked this post by F23A4:
a35tl (06-14-2021),
technocrat (06-15-2021)
#538
Based on the dyno results, yes I do believe the Accord 2.0T is being underrated. The real gap is probably less than 20bhp and largely due to the 87oct tune for the Accord compared to a 91oct tune for the RDX/TLX. Couple that to the higher parasitic losses and heavier weight, and it's no surprise that the Accord walks (runs?) away from the TLX once it gets traction.
#539
Racer
Based on the dyno results, yes I do believe the Accord 2.0T is being underrated. The real gap is probably less than 20bhp and largely due to the 87oct tune for the Accord compared to a 91oct tune for the RDX/TLX. Couple that to the higher parasitic losses and heavier weight, and it's no surprise that the Accord walks (runs?) away from the TLX once it gets traction.
Last edited by Camaro194; 06-14-2021 at 05:32 PM.
#540
Getting back to competition, I'm actually curious about the S60/V60 T8. Sort of intrigued by the performance and the PHEV capability. Not likely a direct competitor for the Type S, but it has me interested. I'm planning to own for @ 10 years, so added warranty will be a necessity given the complex power train. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on both cars.
I also got the 10-year Platinum extended warranty from Volvo for less than $3K, so I'm not too concerned about long term reliability.
The following users liked this post:
Camaro194 (06-14-2021)
#541
Don't celebrate too early. They killed the V6 in the Accord to help TLX. No one, and I mean no one was buying the TLX 2.4 or 3.5 when both engines were available in the Accord. They killed both engines in Accord to save the TLX. Accord 2.0T may not survive for the 11th Gen.
The following users liked this post:
leomio2.0 (06-14-2021)
#542
Don't celebrate too early. They killed the V6 in the Accord to help TLX. No one, and I mean no one was buying the TLX 2.4 or 3.5 when both engines were available in the Accord. They killed both engines in Accord to save the TLX. Accord 2.0T may not survive for the 11th Gen.
As to your claim about killing the 2.4L and 3.5L in the Accord to save the TLX...no. They were killed in order to reduce the number of different engines that had to be made and also due to rising emissions regulations and taxation on displacement in most other markets. Unless you're suggesting a grand conspiracy that resulted in the CRV, Civic, RDX, etc. all having new motors just because Honda needed a way to differentiate the TLX from the Accord...
Last edited by fiatlux; 06-14-2021 at 06:33 PM.
The following users liked this post:
DubPK (06-14-2021)
#543
Based on the dyno results, yes I do believe the Accord 2.0T is being underrated. The real gap is probably less than 20bhp and largely due to the 87oct tune for the Accord compared to a 91oct tune for the RDX/TLX. Couple that to the higher parasitic losses and heavier weight, and it's no surprise that the Accord walks (runs?) away from the TLX once it gets traction.
Don't celebrate too early. They killed the V6 in the Accord to help TLX. No one, and I mean no one was buying the TLX 2.4 or 3.5 when both engines were available in the Accord. They killed both engines in Accord to save the TLX. Accord 2.0T may not survive for the 11th Gen.
#544
Don't celebrate too early. They killed the V6 in the Accord to help TLX. No one, and I mean no one was buying the TLX 2.4 or 3.5 when both engines were available in the Accord. They killed both engines in Accord to save the TLX. Accord 2.0T may not survive for the 11th Gen.
The Acura will sell to the people who want more features, nicer materials and the status. I couldn't give less of a shit the badge on my car. I drive a goddamn Pontiac that will make plenty of $100k cars look slow. If they put the 2.0T in a Honda crossover, no way I'd have even considered Acura ... which I guess is precisely the problem for them if they want the Acura brand to grow. At least for me, it's worked in the opposite way only making me quell my liking for Honda and outright hating Acura.
Last edited by leomio2.0; 06-14-2021 at 06:39 PM.
The following users liked this post:
technocrat (06-14-2021)
#545
#546
These are the years that overlapped the 9G Accord. I'm not exactly sure how that supports the claim that the Accord lost it's 2.4/3.5 engines to help protect the TLX.
2014: 19,127
2015: 47,080
2016: 37,156
2017: 34,846
2015: 47,080
2016: 37,156
2017: 34,846
Last edited by fiatlux; 06-14-2021 at 06:47 PM.
#547
I agree, Honda and Acura sales can not be compared, period. Acura will never have the same sales volume and thats not the intention either. My pet Peave with Acura off late(as someone who owns a 2011 MDX tech+ent and owned a 2015 TLX Elite) is that back in the day the Acura clearly got the better stuff, the engines were different and interior was familiar but with more luxury added. Doesn't seem to be the case now. They seem to think that a sporty 'image' is more important to the brand but not a real sporty car with more power. The 2nd MDX seats were comfy 4rd gen are so hard to make them sporty. It has become a brand that makes good looking cars and not well engineered ones. Again thats my opinion YMMV.
#548
This is what I can't stand about manufacturers. Why nerf the engines simply forcing people to go to your crappy premium brands that are built just as poorly (ie: my RDX) in order to get the more powerful engine? That's a rhetorical question, because I know why ... it's about profit margins. But, it's still annoying. Can you imagine how many Accord Type-R (or whatever the Hell they'd call it) if they stuck that 3.0T in an Accord with AWD (non-SH) and priced it around low to mid $40k? And incentivize dealers to not do what they're doing with the assholes who mark up CTRs like crazy by not giving discounts if you don't move units, and forcing more and more units down dealer throats until they're forced to start selling them at or under sticker. Don't make it a track machine ... just a great daily that's fast enough to keep up with the likes of an S4, C43 and (not as much) M340i. That is the Honda way. Not this overweight, overhyped swing-and-a-miss attempt at de-throning the Germans.
The Acura will sell to the people who want more features, nicer materials and the status. I couldn't give less of a shit the badge on my car. I drive a goddamn Pontiac that will make plenty of $100k cars look slow. If they put the 2.0T in a Honda crossover, no way I'd have even considered Acura ... which I guess is precisely the problem for them if they want the Acura brand to grow. At least for me, it's worked in the opposite way only making me quell my liking for Honda and outright hating Acura.
The Acura will sell to the people who want more features, nicer materials and the status. I couldn't give less of a shit the badge on my car. I drive a goddamn Pontiac that will make plenty of $100k cars look slow. If they put the 2.0T in a Honda crossover, no way I'd have even considered Acura ... which I guess is precisely the problem for them if they want the Acura brand to grow. At least for me, it's worked in the opposite way only making me quell my liking for Honda and outright hating Acura.
From C&D:
3.5L 2016 Accord - 278hp/253ft-lb tq - 5.8s 0-60
2.0T 2021 Accord - 252hp/273ft-lb tq 5.4s 0-60
The Accord lost nothing measurable losing the V6 unless the only numbers you look at is 4 being less than 6.
#549
Who the fuck buys an Acura for status? Most people have completely forgotten they exist because they spent the last ten years making some of the most unappealing cars on the market. Honda didn't kill off the 3.5L to make the TLX look good they killed it off because it was a dinosaur (a good dinosaur but a dinosaur) from a different time period. The 2.0T Accord is MORE powerful and more efficient then the 3.5L was, the writing has been on the wall for the NA V6 for a long time.
From C&D:
3.5L 2016 Accord - 278hp/253ft-lb tq - 5.8s 0-60
2.0T 2021 Accord - 252hp/273ft-lb tq 5.4s 0-60
The Accord lost nothing measurable losing the V6 unless the only numbers you look at is 4 being less than 6.
From C&D:
3.5L 2016 Accord - 278hp/253ft-lb tq - 5.8s 0-60
2.0T 2021 Accord - 252hp/273ft-lb tq 5.4s 0-60
The Accord lost nothing measurable losing the V6 unless the only numbers you look at is 4 being less than 6.
As for engines, I don't disagree that the 2.0T is a good fit for the Accord, but why was it never put in the CR-V as an option when they share the same platform? And I highly doubt the 3.0T is trickling down to anything that Honda makes. Same as Audi doesn't give VW their more powerful engine variants ... tho I think Audi/VW aren't as closely related as Honda/Acura. This is more my point of contention as opposed to 'V6 vs. 4-banger turbo'. That being said, the engine isn't everything ... the new 10AT I'm sure had something to do with quicker acceleration. Thaaaaat being said, there's more to the story than 0-60.
2021 2.0T Honda Accord (C&D)
60 mph: 5.4 sec
100 mph: 13.5 sec
1/4 mile: 14.0 sec @ 101 mph
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.2 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.3 sec
2013 Honda Accord V6 (C&D)
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mph
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.1 sec
In a controlled race, yes, the 2.0T is faster. But, in more "every day" usable power, the V6 actually comes out on top. Pair that to the current 10AT as opposed to the 6-speed in the 2013 Accord tested and it's likely every metric would be faster than the current 2.0T. Again, this isn't a knock on the 2.0T. I quite like it in my RDX, minus the goddamn oil dilution issue. My issue is car companies (not just Honda) forcing you to subscribe to their luxury brands simply to get their more powerful engines. Is it a selfish, short-sighted, emotional tirade based on less than all the facts? Yes. Do I care? No. Give me more powah!! ... and for cheaper. =P
#550
Fair points but even if the 2.0T falls behind the 3.5L in a few metrics by tenths of a second as pointed out that's still more than good enough to qualify it as a lateral replacement. What we are seeing is just a biproduct of this move to turbo everything. The 1.6T (think that's what it is) offered in the Accord is on par with the older I4, the 2.0T is on par with the older V6, on par is all these engines really needed to be to keep the Accord and it's two engine options feeling roughly the same as they always have. The 3.0T will probably never trickle down to Honda in their normal cars you're right but that's not surprising really. These new turbo V6's are going to be almost universally found in either trucks/high end cross overs or performance cars. Maybe the 3.0T gets used in the Ridgeline in the future??? Seems like a stretch. Maybe in the Civic Type R? God that sounds like some fun but that's way to much power for FWD lol, AWD 3.0T 6spd CTR - damn the mark up on that would be absolutely astronomical.
The following users liked this post:
leomio2.0 (06-14-2021)
#551
1.5T, not 1.6T, but your point stands, though I think the 1.5T is better than the K24.
#552
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
2021 2.0T Honda Accord (C&D)
60 mph: 5.4 sec
100 mph: 13.5 sec
1/4 mile: 14.0 sec @ 101 mph
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.2 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.3 sec
2013 Honda Accord V6 (C&D)
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.9 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mph
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.1 sec
The following users liked this post:
Monte TLS,MAX (06-15-2021)
#553
The biggest surprise is Acura going backwards with a Turbo engine for type S instead of going the route they went with RLX SH-SHAWD. Electric or Hybrids are the future, they are late by a decade to the turbo game and with a sports hybrid they would have got the most power(RLX had 377 Hp), best handling and quicker 0-60 and other times. A missed opportunity. If cost was a concern, then the 355Bhp one should have been the base model and Hybrid should have been the Type S
The following 2 users liked this post by technocrat:
F23A4 (06-15-2021),
Monte TLS,MAX (06-15-2021)
#554
Senior Moderator
The biggest surprise is Acura going backwards with a Turbo engine for type S instead of going the route they went with RLX SH-SHAWD. Electric or Hybrids are the future, they are late by a decade to the turbo game and with a sports hybrid they would have got the most power(RLX had 377 Hp), best handling and quicker 0-60 and other times. A missed opportunity. If cost was a concern, then the 355Bhp one should have been the base model and Hybrid should have been the Type S
The following users liked this post:
technocrat (06-15-2021)
#555
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,469
Received 1,619 Likes
on
976 Posts
The biggest surprise is Acura going backwards with a Turbo engine for type S instead of going the route they went with RLX SH-SHAWD. Electric or Hybrids are the future, they are late by a decade to the turbo game and with a sports hybrid they would have got the most power(RLX had 377 Hp), best handling and quicker 0-60 and other times. A missed opportunity. If cost was a concern, then the 355Bhp one should have been the base model and Hybrid should have been the Type S
#556
Interesting race, the Mazda loses even with more torque(which matters more than HP in a drag) and less weight. I wonder where are the weight & transmission loss disadvantage that folks talked about when it lose to the Accord
#557
Racer
What is the competition for TLX-S that has as good or better AWD and is faster? I'm considering trading my 2021 TLX SH-AWD for a Type S next year if I can get a deal. Given that I love the SH-AWD in this car, what is the competition I should be looking at that would deliver similar AWD handling but with more power?
#558
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,600 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Might be me but I think the star sucks at launching a car. He looks slow to react to the start in many of the vid I have seen. At first I though the other guy was jumping the start but it happened more than a few times.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 06-19-2021 at 11:24 AM.
The following users liked this post:
technocrat (06-21-2021)
#559
Interesting race, the Mazda loses even with more torque(which matters more than HP in a drag) and less weight. I wonder where are the weight & transmission loss disadvantage that folks talked about when it lose to the Accord
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6aijIYefpY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6aijIYefpY
The following users liked this post:
technocrat (06-21-2021)
#560
Torque will pull you and get you going, but when you're accelerating through the gears, it's not nearly as important as power (torque * RPMS / 5252). For the Mazda6, sure it makes a boatload of torque in the low range, but the car runs out of steam at the top end, and the top end is where the transmission keeps the engine as you're accelerating WOT. From 2000-4000RPMs the Mazda may pull harder (assuming you have enough traction), but by 4000RPMs and onwards it's going to feel slower. Other reviewers have also mentioned how hard it is to launch the Mazda6 and that it just spins its wheels through 1st, so clearly all that torque it's making isn't actually being put to full use.
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (06-20-2021)