When I was a kid they had station wagons. They made complete sense. and actually looked pretty good. They could fit a family comfortably, had decent gas mileage for their day, and less environmental impact. They had plenty of cargo room for all the families needs. Most people don't need and use all that room and to me in the resource devouring planet we live in they just add to the misery we will eventually have to face. But I realize 95% of the people in this country are spoiled and could care less about the planets resources even when they say they do. SO PLEASE DON'T

 

as a whole, we should give up cars and ride bikes and give up mowing our lawn.
but thats not gonna happen.

p.s. sporty cars emit as much pollution if not more than suv's.

 

Families with 3+ kids and people in construction absolutely use them. When my father needed to buy sheets of drywall, they beautifully fit inside a Chevy Venture LS minivan. So you're saying an SUV pollutes more than requesting a diesel truck to ship it over. In that case, cut the Type-S out since a turbo 4 is more than enough for any family ...

 

This reminds me of the stupid political discussions I have with the people in my town. Even if I make a correct statement they say I am wrong.because it conflicts with there own likes and interests. The truth is becoming more elusive day by day. You people obviously love SUV's and will defend them to the end. Knowing inside the strong negatives about them that you couldn't care less about. Nothing new. Welcome to the modern world

 

Um...is it better to have ONE vehicle that's an SUV or two vehicles like a sedan and a pickup truck? I thought the whole point of people buying SUVs is because they're a jack of all trades. Get a fast one, and you can eliminate the sports car as well. Better still, get an electric one. All problems solved.

 

And you know something. My 06 TL is a ultra low emissions vehicle. And I love knowing that I am contributing less than the average vehicle to the destruction of this planet. I can hear all you macho men laughing already.

 

Oh the irony in this post

 

No, because what you say about SUVs can easily be applied to performance sedans, sports cars, and eventually cars in general. Let's just all go ahead and drive around in 1.0L minicars because planet.

There are so many disadvantages to having a sports car. I won't get into them here (oh wait I will). But what I meant by priorities is that most people these days don't really care about the driving experience. The men claim they need the power and the women want to be seen in them lol. Before the seventies when sports cars were starting to be popular, people did just fine with sedans. They didn't scream for more power and a fast vehicle. People just felt the to copy each other and follow the herd. Real stupid aspect of the culture in our country. . . .

I'll list a few reasons for why we should ban sports cars
1) They are gas guzzlers
2) They pollute more
3) Because of their power they are more prone to accidents.
4) Dailying them is a pain the neck
5) They make too much noise in a loud world.

 

Actually you aren't. An older V6 mated to an old transmission is less efficient than something more modern.

 

That ULEV just means it emits 50% less pollutants than the average new car for that same model year. Not much to brag about, it's not even a SULEV. That's like bragging that you received a B on a test. Woop-dee-doo. Guess what car is also a ULEV? An Acura MDX. Your car is just as polluting as an SUV!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!! And considering it's age, it's probably more polluting than a modern SUV. YOU'RE A TERRIBLE PERSON FOR DESTROYING THE EARTH!!!!

 

Oh lord did you hear what I said ? MY CAR IS A ULEV !!!!!!!!! That doesn't change LOL !!!!!!!!!!

 

ULEV is relative to cars of the same year, so yes it does change. If you're going to boast about something, at least understand what you're boasting about mr rocket scientist.

 

I was just trying to make a point. That I care about the environment. I can see you have as much sensitivity towards that as a fire hydrant. I'm done with the peanut gallery

 

My previous Range Rover Velar was also a ULEV. It spent all its time at the service department so I never got to drive it anywhere.

 

I have a PHEV and a 4-cylinder and my house has solar panels, so I clearly care more about it than you, you outdated V6-driving fake-environmentalist-virtue-signaler . If you really cared about the environment, you'd trade in that old car for a Clarity PHEV.

 

I may grab a Tech because it will have the Phantom Violet Pearl Paint option. I don't need Advance and it isn't an Apec color I don't believe

 

I will be honest I am confused why the Type-S gives up options such as rain sensing wipers, power folding mirrors, surround camera and HUD. This is the top of the line car it should have everything. As I recall, Audi in the S models had all the same options and then some, not taking things away. That and lack of LCD instrument panel and the weak infotainment has me leaning more G70 or hopefully waiting on the next gen G80.

 

Welcome to Acura. Can't have it all.

 

Just read the '21 Stinger GT with 3.3T is getting a bump to 380HP, which means the G70 likely will too. Wonder if they did it to give themselves a bit more room against the TLX-S for people who were on the fence.

So far, I haven't heard anything saying there will be an RDX-S (which would likely get the 3.0T). It looks like Acura is coming out with a new compact sedan that will have a Type-S variant. This will likely be the CTR variant for Acura for people who want the performance of the CTR but can't get over the styling of it (ie: me). So far, only the TLX and MDX will be getting the 3.0T. That will likely change as Honda/Acura need to find ways to make their money back on that engine, and super low sales of the TLX-S and MDX-S certainly aren't going to cut it.

 

What is this thread? Giving the 3G board a run for it's money lol.

Either way, if someone needs to compare a base model to the Type-S due to cost, they probably shouldn't be looking at a TLX in the first place. I don't go wishing there was an entry level M3 that could be had for a bit more than a stripper 320i.

 

M3 is in a different league than anything a TLX could dream of being. M340i is comparable to the TLX-S, while the 330i x-Drive would be comparable to the non-Type S. At this point, I don't even know what anyone is arguing about anymore, so I'll just add to the melee by say the next gen WRX STi is going to be the greatest thing to ever grace the face of the Earth. 400HP out of a 2.4L turbo? Wow. Plus a ride that will make your kidneys bleed and make you the coolest 30 or 40-something year old in the local high school parking lot. I've definitely decided on my next car.

 

well MB has the 2.0l that makes 416hp

 

Think is the price spread base to S in a 3G was not that great back then IIRC about $3,000. Still there was all kinds of you hate the S because you can't afford it. I had purchased a base 6MT 2006 after it was announced that the 2007 base was AT only. Had no interest in the S. Got a lot of crap about not being able to afford the S. Caused a S**t Storm with some when I said the price difference between the two would just about fill my boats 755 gallon fuel tanks (diesel fuel prices very high then) from empty.

It a very bad plan to assume what people can afford. Its also pretty stupid to knock someone who buys something less expensive then what you bought.

 

...cars 20 years older or with half of the power and tires...compare a Macan Turbo with a proper modern sport sedan of comparable power and the gap return.....

 

Exactly and let's not forget the Torque Vectoring real diff present in many of the fast SUV which works magic....but you have the general driving feel that is simply better on low center of gravity cars.

I agree that the Macan or the Stelvio handle really well for a SUV but part of this is also because they are lower to the ground than your regular SUV meaning they have to be a bit "less than an SUV" to handle closer to a car...for all intent and purposes, they are hatchback simply raised few inches.

 

Honestly I don't think the Type S will be comparable to the M340i. The Current M340i, is just as fast as the F80 M3. I highly doubt the TLX can even break a 4.6. 0-60 time or handle as well.

 

With only 355 hp and significantly more weight than the outgoing model, it would be nice if it can just keep up with the old TLX V6.

 

 

Don't forget the new turbo-V6 has a lot more low to mid-range torque than the outgoing V6. It will make the new TLX go fast, especially much superior throttle response.

 

I’ll believe it when I see it. I’ve had plenty of turbocharged cars and they all take time to build boost. It’s one of the reasons that they do amazing when using launch control, but in the real world where you don’t have time to do that, not so much.

 

America actually built one of the first high performance Station Wagon in the world, some sort of American M5 Station....Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser 455. It did handle very well for a station wagon (for the standards of that time)

 

 

We had a 1970 dark-blue Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser almost just like this growing up. 400-V8 . Moon-Roof and large decals of fake-wood on the sides. Tail-gate opened either way, and it's window shattered a couple of times while closing it normally. Good car and parents kept it for 10 years.

This one pictured might be a "442" variant ?

IIRC, back then you either had a Station-Wagon or a Van. No one we knew had a Suburban.

At the same time, we also had a red 1970 Cutlass 2-dr with a 350-V8 . White (vinyl?) top and fake hood-scoops.

Both were big, heavy, and fast for those days.

 

Turbocharged cars engines have worse throttle response than if they were naturally aspirated. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1...e-to-the-test/

If the car is more responsive than the old V6, that's only because it's no longer saddled by the atrocious ZF9 transmission.

 

Yes and I know people here want to be optimistic but when has Honda/Acura ever underrated an Engine? This car is in a unique category. It doesn't really compete with anything. They should have made the car 400 HP just to shut us all up. Infiniti did it. Why are they so damn timid?!?!?!?

 

The real fast one was the 455 Vista Cruiser (the one on the picture)

13.5 on the 1/4.....

 

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced the best thing to do is to avoid the Type S, because it’s carrying a badge that the car itself won’t be able to live up to. Just imagine you’re in your brand spanking new Type S at a red light and sure enough an M340i pulls up next to you. When the light turns green do you gun it or do you just pretend you didn’t see the Bimmer?

If you get the 2.0T, you’re not saddled with such expectations. If you want, just get a nice set of 20” aftermarket wheels, slap on a subtle spoiler on the trunk lid and call it a day. I mean, by all accounts, the car is nice looking and the Advance (in particular) comes with lots of features. Save some money and get the Advance instead of the Type S. Neither car is going to beat the competition in terms of performance anyway so why bother with the Type S?

 

Comparable? Likely no. Actually compete against as far as a sporty luxury sedan that has a turbo 6-banger under the hood? Yes. Every rag will be pitting the TLX-S against the S4, G70, M340i and the C43. It makes sense with how closely priced it is to those as well. Agreed that its likely going to perform quite poorly, especially for being "brand new" while the rest of the competition has been out for, what, at least 3yrs now?

But ... the high school kids won't give a second look at a Benz. The STi will have angsty teenaged boys with gross upper lip hair running over and fawning over your car. Clearly you don't understand what a true auto enthusiast is ... especially in the import crowd. Being lamented by teenagers (strictly male ones) is the pinnacle of "making it" in the JDM crowd.

Yep, it honestly makes no sense aside from "well, hopefully the Acura is more reliable." These things are going to get trolled by every single person in an M340i or even C43. You won't even be able to pull away from an S4 or G70. So, yes, they'll just pretend to be fiddling with something on their infotainment as the other car rips away from them, meanwhile telling themselves that Honda engineering makes great engines while praying their 10-speed automatic transmission doesn't explode without warning.

 

Actually, I think ours had a 455 also ... I think they all did now that you mention it... and the GM Police cars had the 501's .
Looked just like this.
https://www.hotrodhotline.com/forsal...listing/140580

I was a young-boy at the time (thank goodness for Internet) so looks like 455 was just the engine size, and they had different versions with different HP.
https://oldsjunction.classicoldsmobi...faq/ofe455.htm

Pretty sure ... the one in your pic says "442" on the side (an appearance and performance package). That would explain the special wheels, white-stripe (no wood decal) and the hood scoops. That one looks restored.

The 1970-1972 Cutlass 442 was even cooler. It also had higher HP than stock model.

 

Hahaha, holy drama. Well, to be honest, M340I is a damn fast car and not many cars can keep up with it, never mind smoking it. But, the Type S better perform, at this price point, I don't want to hear any excuses. Like I said before, if this car can't even keep up with current competition it's a total FAIL. Acura har cornered themselves. All this marketing nonsense about 'Precision Crafted Performance' and you launch the Type S it better at the very least keep up.....