MIKEYDRED

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.

MIKEYDRED

Rumor has it sport back goes away atleast in US next generation so it would make sense the A4 looks like this, baby etron.

BEAR-AvHistory

Most quality new cars are pretty sealed up & you would not here any sound without it being piped in. I notice a difference in the tone inside vs outside of my cars with the sound system. Best "real" outside sound I have outside of the COBRA is the 135is. That version came with a pretty gutted muffler stock.

BTW don't know about Audi but the piped in sound on mine will vary with drive mode & it can be shut down completely.

Tony Pac

This was pretty interesting:
The BMW is a beasts...wow! It legit flies.

kuzdu

I Posted this in that G70 post......he didn't stand a chance, my car is a M240

"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."

F23A4

Indeed! I saw this video yesterday and it turned out as expected. Honestly, the G70 3.3T is a tweener between the 330i and the M340i; a lot of that having to do with BMW bringing a gun to a knife fight in this segment. I suspect the TLX-S will be more inline with the G70 3.3T than an M340i.

Tony Pac

Keeping all the negativity aside, let's watch a nice video from Sam:


Definitely Acura TLX TYPE S is not in this league at all. But this is fun to watch.

BEAR-AvHistory

Just proves what I have been saying about BMW power ratings & advertised 0-62km times. They lie BIG TIME. After watching the vid no one should really believe there is only a 17BHP spread between those cars.

Lots of debate about whos AWD is mechanically the best. Believe from a pure software point of view the Audi's are the pick of the litter. Only outlier I would say is the M5.

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

Tony Pac

Even Sam said the same. I think he said it has to be 400+ HP.

BEAR-AvHistory

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.

Tony Pac

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.

Nexx

how about this.. BMW, Audi and Mercedes are better. There can we move on from that now?

F23A4

fiatlux

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.

Nexx

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.

technocrat

Are you suggesting that Honda has quoted lower power figures than what the engine is really producing? On Paper there is the 20 bhp, 7 torques and 300 LB difference.

F23A4

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.

fiatlux

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.

Camaro194

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.

fiatlux

My initial thoughts: https://acurazine.com/forums/car-tal.../#post16601457

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.

loki

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.

fiatlux

That's hyperbole. Acura managed to sell over 200K units of the 1G TLX. That's about 50K more than the 4G TL.

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...

technocrat

Where did you get 526lb difference? The video shows 3990lb for TLX & 3356lb for Accord, thats 634 lbs I guess a more fair comparison would be with a FWD TLX and 3 extra adults in the Accord

Thats a good point, the higher octane tune might be reason for the slight change in numbers

Sad but true, this is the time to grab them Accords, except for some fancy stuff almost everything is better in the Accord, the headunit is leaps & bounds better than Acura's

leomio2.0

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.

technocrat

The TLX replaced TL & TSX, how much was the total TL + TSX sales compared to TLX sales?

fiatlux

Regardless, 200K is not "no one". Hence why I said his claim is hyperbole. You can claim it wasn't a runaway sales success, but to claim that "no one, and I mean no one" bought one is a stupid exaggeration. Especially when the best sales years were when the 9G Accord was offered.

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.

That's a hell of a lot of nobodies; in fact, more nobodies than the A4.

technocrat

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.

DubPK

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.

leomio2.0

LoL, although I agree with you, there are plenty of people who think Acura = luxury. After all, it is their claimed "Premium" brand.

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

DubPK

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.

fiatlux

1.5T, not 1.6T, but your point stands, though I think the 1.5T is better than the K24.

BEAR-AvHistory

The 1/4 mile number suggests is a wash as far as the engines go. The variance in the other numbers can be accounted for by gearing, tire size, traction etc

technocrat

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

F23A4

Agreed. They did the same with the V6 hybrid on the 7G Accord; seems like they hit it and quit it when is comes to performance oriented hybrids (excl NSX).

Tony Pac

100% correct! As you said, I think Acura is late in the game. For almost 10 years, they did almost nothing. That brought the company down. I do see they are on the right track but why fall behind again by not going after EV and mild hybrid at least. Really can't comment as I don't know.

technocrat

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

robnalex

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?

BEAR-AvHistory

Nope. Torque launches the car off the line but horsepower get you down the track. You can see the switch from torque to horsepower as the TLX goes from pretty much even up to pulling away an a nice clip. They are also running a 6 speed AT vs a10 speed AT giving the TLX an advantage in gearing particularly in the first 60-90 ft so it can stay even with the Mazda at the start by torque multiplication.

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.

fiatlux

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.

bilirubin

Agreed, not to mention the Mazda is FWD, so that 300+ lbs-ft of torque is hard to put down.