I was wrong.
02-21-2023, 11:06 AM
#41
7th Gear
Thanks. So far the car has been great. Fastest car I have owned amd it’s a blast to drive. It’s too bad i currently have winter tires on it due to where I live. Can’t wait till Sumer comes and I can swap to the performance tires and wheels. TLX-S is my second black car. I had a black 1998 Prelude when I was younger. Black is a beautiful colour if taken care of. Very glad I drove it straight from the dealer to the detail shop to get PPF on full front. Also got ceramic coating by Gyeon and the gloss is insane. Summer can’t come soon enough.
02-21-2023, 12:20 PM
#43
We're planning to flip my daughter to a front facing car seat sometime this year, so the small backseat is no longer a dealbreaker for the Type S. I went back for another test drive. If folks recall, I test drove it when it first came out over a year and a half ago (wow, time flies).
I came out of this test drive both more impressed and more disappointed than before.
I still like the interior, and the exterior I think is still best in class. I don't particularly care for the exterior dimensions, but I do like the more aggressive design. I think both the S5 SB and TLX Type S are the best lookers in the segment; one is more subdued and elegant, and the other is more aggressive. Can't go wrong with either.
The team that worked on the SH-AWD deserves a raise and a fat bonus. If there's one thing this car does better than every other car it competes with (yes, that includes the M340i), it is how the car handles and feels. The steering is way better than the BMW, turn in is quick and sharp and accurate, and SH-AWD makes this car oh so easy to drive fast in the twisties. This car reminds me a lot of the Evo X, which also had a supurb AWD that would make even the most ham-fisted driver look like a hero. What it does is downright magical given all the mass it needs to handle. It'd be nice if the car got a diet so it wouldn't be punching with one hand tied behind its back, but even so it's still fantastic.
If the SH-AWD team deserves a raise, then whichever team worked on the engine and transmission needs to get PIP'd. On my previous test drive I said the engine holds par, and while it wasn't a reason to buy the car, it's also not a dealbreaker. Well, I think I was a bit too generous. This engine is just...not good, especially for a Honda engine. For a Honda product, I expect the engine to be the best part of the car (there's a saying: when you buy a Honda, you're really buying an engine and they throw in the rest of the car for free). In this case, it's not just the lack of (relative) power; Honda engines have never been about big power, but they're still exciting and fun. This engine, however, falls short because of the lack of power and the way that it delivers the power. At the low-end and mid-range, the engine is decently punch, and isn't too far behind even the B58 in the pants-of-your-seat feel. However, the B58 just keeps pulling and pulling and pulling all the way to redline. Even the EA839 pulls well to redline. However, the Type S motor just falls flat north of 5000RPMs, and the transmission even short shifts a couple hundred RPMS short of redline. This is the least Honda-like engine that I've ever experienced in a Honda product. If you'er not going to make big power, you better tune it to be exciting, and in this case it's just not. To add insult to injury, they stick a big tach in front of you that goes all the way up to 8000RPMs, but a whole quarter of that is filled in with a big fat red block because it's past the redline. It's like a constant reminder of the engine's deficiencies.
The transmission is also annoying in that it won't hold a gear, and short shifts for you. Methinks the transmission team knew there's no power at the top end, and would just rather drop you down into the mid-range where there's more punch.
Brakes I still think are marvelous. I don't know why some folks don't like this particular brake-by-wire setup, but I think the braking feels is great.
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
Suffice to say, I'm going to have to pass again on it. Maybe the MMC will see a revised turbo or tune that will address the engine.
I came out of this test drive both more impressed and more disappointed than before.
I still like the interior, and the exterior I think is still best in class. I don't particularly care for the exterior dimensions, but I do like the more aggressive design. I think both the S5 SB and TLX Type S are the best lookers in the segment; one is more subdued and elegant, and the other is more aggressive. Can't go wrong with either.
The team that worked on the SH-AWD deserves a raise and a fat bonus. If there's one thing this car does better than every other car it competes with (yes, that includes the M340i), it is how the car handles and feels. The steering is way better than the BMW, turn in is quick and sharp and accurate, and SH-AWD makes this car oh so easy to drive fast in the twisties. This car reminds me a lot of the Evo X, which also had a supurb AWD that would make even the most ham-fisted driver look like a hero. What it does is downright magical given all the mass it needs to handle. It'd be nice if the car got a diet so it wouldn't be punching with one hand tied behind its back, but even so it's still fantastic.
If the SH-AWD team deserves a raise, then whichever team worked on the engine and transmission needs to get PIP'd. On my previous test drive I said the engine holds par, and while it wasn't a reason to buy the car, it's also not a dealbreaker. Well, I think I was a bit too generous. This engine is just...not good, especially for a Honda engine. For a Honda product, I expect the engine to be the best part of the car (there's a saying: when you buy a Honda, you're really buying an engine and they throw in the rest of the car for free). In this case, it's not just the lack of (relative) power; Honda engines have never been about big power, but they're still exciting and fun. This engine, however, falls short because of the lack of power and the way that it delivers the power. At the low-end and mid-range, the engine is decently punch, and isn't too far behind even the B58 in the pants-of-your-seat feel. However, the B58 just keeps pulling and pulling and pulling all the way to redline. Even the EA839 pulls well to redline. However, the Type S motor just falls flat north of 5000RPMs, and the transmission even short shifts a couple hundred RPMS short of redline. This is the least Honda-like engine that I've ever experienced in a Honda product. If you'er not going to make big power, you better tune it to be exciting, and in this case it's just not. To add insult to injury, they stick a big tach in front of you that goes all the way up to 8000RPMs, but a whole quarter of that is filled in with a big fat red block because it's past the redline. It's like a constant reminder of the engine's deficiencies.
The transmission is also annoying in that it won't hold a gear, and short shifts for you. Methinks the transmission team knew there's no power at the top end, and would just rather drop you down into the mid-range where there's more punch.
Brakes I still think are marvelous. I don't know why some folks don't like this particular brake-by-wire setup, but I think the braking feels is great.
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
Suffice to say, I'm going to have to pass again on it. Maybe the MMC will see a revised turbo or tune that will address the engine.
Last edited by fiatlux; 02-21-2023 at 12:23 PM.
02-21-2023, 01:16 PM
#44
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,431
Received 1,598 Likes
on
961 Posts
We're planning to flip my daughter to a front facing car seat sometime this year, so the small backseat is no longer a dealbreaker for the Type S. I went back for another test drive. If folks recall, I test drove it when it first came out over a year and a half ago (wow, time flies).
I came out of this test drive both more impressed and more disappointed than before.
I still like the interior, and the exterior I think is still best in class. I don't particularly care for the exterior dimensions, but I do like the more aggressive design. I think both the S5 SB and TLX Type S are the best lookers in the segment; one is more subdued and elegant, and the other is more aggressive. Can't go wrong with either.
The team that worked on the SH-AWD deserves a raise and a fat bonus. If there's one thing this car does better than every other car it competes with (yes, that includes the M340i), it is how the car handles and feels. The steering is way better than the BMW, turn in is quick and sharp and accurate, and SH-AWD makes this car oh so easy to drive fast in the twisties. This car reminds me a lot of the Evo X, which also had a supurb AWD that would make even the most ham-fisted driver look like a hero. What it does is downright magical given all the mass it needs to handle. It'd be nice if the car got a diet so it wouldn't be punching with one hand tied behind its back, but even so it's still fantastic.
If the SH-AWD team deserves a raise, then whichever team worked on the engine and transmission needs to get PIP'd. On my previous test drive I said the engine holds par, and while it wasn't a reason to buy the car, it's also not a dealbreaker. Well, I think I was a bit too generous. This engine is just...not good, especially for a Honda engine. For a Honda product, I expect the engine to be the best part of the car (there's a saying: when you buy a Honda, you're really buying an engine and they throw in the rest of the car for free). In this case, it's not just the lack of (relative) power; Honda engines have never been about big power, but they're still exciting and fun. This engine, however, falls short because of the lack of power and the way that it delivers the power. At the low-end and mid-range, the engine is decently punch, and isn't too far behind even the B58 in the pants-of-your-seat feel. However, the B58 just keeps pulling and pulling and pulling all the way to redline. Even the EA839 pulls well to redline. However, the Type S motor just falls flat north of 5000RPMs, and the transmission even short shifts a couple hundred RPMS short of redline. This is the least Honda-like engine that I've ever experienced in a Honda product. If you'er not going to make big power, you better tune it to be exciting, and in this case it's just not. To add insult to injury, they stick a big tach in front of you that goes all the way up to 8000RPMs, but a whole quarter of that is filled in with a big fat red block because it's past the redline. It's like a constant reminder of the engine's deficiencies.
The transmission is also annoying in that it won't hold a gear, and short shifts for you. Methinks the transmission team knew there's no power at the top end, and would just rather drop you down into the mid-range where there's more punch.
Brakes I still think are marvelous. I don't know why some folks don't like this particular brake-by-wire setup, but I think the braking feels is great.
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
Suffice to say, I'm going to have to pass again on it. Maybe the MMC will see a revised turbo or tune that will address the engine.
I came out of this test drive both more impressed and more disappointed than before.
I still like the interior, and the exterior I think is still best in class. I don't particularly care for the exterior dimensions, but I do like the more aggressive design. I think both the S5 SB and TLX Type S are the best lookers in the segment; one is more subdued and elegant, and the other is more aggressive. Can't go wrong with either.
The team that worked on the SH-AWD deserves a raise and a fat bonus. If there's one thing this car does better than every other car it competes with (yes, that includes the M340i), it is how the car handles and feels. The steering is way better than the BMW, turn in is quick and sharp and accurate, and SH-AWD makes this car oh so easy to drive fast in the twisties. This car reminds me a lot of the Evo X, which also had a supurb AWD that would make even the most ham-fisted driver look like a hero. What it does is downright magical given all the mass it needs to handle. It'd be nice if the car got a diet so it wouldn't be punching with one hand tied behind its back, but even so it's still fantastic.
If the SH-AWD team deserves a raise, then whichever team worked on the engine and transmission needs to get PIP'd. On my previous test drive I said the engine holds par, and while it wasn't a reason to buy the car, it's also not a dealbreaker. Well, I think I was a bit too generous. This engine is just...not good, especially for a Honda engine. For a Honda product, I expect the engine to be the best part of the car (there's a saying: when you buy a Honda, you're really buying an engine and they throw in the rest of the car for free). In this case, it's not just the lack of (relative) power; Honda engines have never been about big power, but they're still exciting and fun. This engine, however, falls short because of the lack of power and the way that it delivers the power. At the low-end and mid-range, the engine is decently punch, and isn't too far behind even the B58 in the pants-of-your-seat feel. However, the B58 just keeps pulling and pulling and pulling all the way to redline. Even the EA839 pulls well to redline. However, the Type S motor just falls flat north of 5000RPMs, and the transmission even short shifts a couple hundred RPMS short of redline. This is the least Honda-like engine that I've ever experienced in a Honda product. If you'er not going to make big power, you better tune it to be exciting, and in this case it's just not. To add insult to injury, they stick a big tach in front of you that goes all the way up to 8000RPMs, but a whole quarter of that is filled in with a big fat red block because it's past the redline. It's like a constant reminder of the engine's deficiencies.
The transmission is also annoying in that it won't hold a gear, and short shifts for you. Methinks the transmission team knew there's no power at the top end, and would just rather drop you down into the mid-range where there's more punch.
Brakes I still think are marvelous. I don't know why some folks don't like this particular brake-by-wire setup, but I think the braking feels is great.
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
Suffice to say, I'm going to have to pass again on it. Maybe the MMC will see a revised turbo or tune that will address the engine.
The following users liked this post:
MarcoTLX (02-22-2023)
02-21-2023, 01:17 PM
#45
.
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
Suffice to say, I'm going to have to pass again on it. Maybe the MMC will see a revised turbo or tune that will address the engine.
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
Suffice to say, I'm going to have to pass again on it. Maybe the MMC will see a revised turbo or tune that will address the engine.
I really hope the aftermarket puts something out. Or heck, someone just swaps out the turbo. Agree 100% with you that this car just looks great rolling down the street.
If someone can put down ~450wHP (480 on KTuner’s ego dyno) down with this platform reliably, I’ll be at the dealership putting down a deposit and eating my words.
02-21-2023, 01:17 PM
#46
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,431
Received 1,598 Likes
on
961 Posts
Thanks. So far the car has been great. Fastest car I have owned amd it’s a blast to drive. It’s too bad i currently have winter tires on it due to where I live. Can’t wait till Sumer comes and I can swap to the performance tires and wheels. TLX-S is my second black car. I had a black 1998 Prelude when I was younger. Black is a beautiful colour if taken care of. Very glad I drove it straight from the dealer to the detail shop to get PPF on full front. Also got ceramic coating by Gyeon and the gloss is insane. Summer can’t come soon enough.
Of course! In Quebec and Alberta, winter tires are mandatory
Enjoy your gorgeous car!
02-25-2023, 03:31 PM
#47
Personally, I think you may miss the extra legroom in the back if you switched from your Integra to the TLX (not to mention ease of parking in urban areas). I've bumped my head a couple times when buckling kids in the TLX ceiling due to how low the car is. I definitely don't miss that anymore!
02-25-2023, 05:35 PM
#48
Instructor
Thread Starter
Nice writeup! Hope you find the car that suits you best!
I will say, in slight defense of the engine, this is just a byproduct of the turbo era combined with Honda's typically conservative approach to power. I've had an 87 Accord, a 91 Prelude, 9th Gen Accord V6 and the type s is my first Acura product and yeah some of that signature Honda is gone now. Gone are the days of revving out my old Prelude to 8 grand or whatever the redline was or even the glorious J35 in my Accord that loved to scream. Turbos, which are mostly a product of regulations and efficiency/emissions standards than purely for performance, generally change the nature of the engine with all of the power being produced at lower RPM's and when you consider that, I'm sure you COULD rev the J30AC out well past 6000 without risk of damaging it but there's no point to doing so and overall acceleration would probably decrease as a result of the turbo falling off.
Considering that and looking at the transmission again, I think it's one of the best Honda transmissions I've ever had. It shifts lightning quick, rev matches on down shifts, knows exactly what gear to keep the car in for maximum power generally and downshifts generously when you'd expect it to like slowing down a bit for a curve and then it's right there in a lower gear ready to pull you out. It's honestly got to be one of the best transmissions Honda has ever put out (minus supercars) when you look at the overall picture of what it's trying to do (minus auto shifting in manual mode that's always disappointing).
The most disappointing thing is that Honda may have been a little too conservative with the power and boost but I think even a stage 1 ktuner goes a long ways based on some initial impressions I've read and I can't help but think they knew anyone serious about performance would tweak it to their liking which played into the more conservative and likely more reliable factory settings they rolled with.
The old Honda where you rev the piss out of the motor and listen to that signature vtec scream to get all of your power is dead and gone for better or worse.
I will say, in slight defense of the engine, this is just a byproduct of the turbo era combined with Honda's typically conservative approach to power. I've had an 87 Accord, a 91 Prelude, 9th Gen Accord V6 and the type s is my first Acura product and yeah some of that signature Honda is gone now. Gone are the days of revving out my old Prelude to 8 grand or whatever the redline was or even the glorious J35 in my Accord that loved to scream. Turbos, which are mostly a product of regulations and efficiency/emissions standards than purely for performance, generally change the nature of the engine with all of the power being produced at lower RPM's and when you consider that, I'm sure you COULD rev the J30AC out well past 6000 without risk of damaging it but there's no point to doing so and overall acceleration would probably decrease as a result of the turbo falling off.
Considering that and looking at the transmission again, I think it's one of the best Honda transmissions I've ever had. It shifts lightning quick, rev matches on down shifts, knows exactly what gear to keep the car in for maximum power generally and downshifts generously when you'd expect it to like slowing down a bit for a curve and then it's right there in a lower gear ready to pull you out. It's honestly got to be one of the best transmissions Honda has ever put out (minus supercars) when you look at the overall picture of what it's trying to do (minus auto shifting in manual mode that's always disappointing).
The most disappointing thing is that Honda may have been a little too conservative with the power and boost but I think even a stage 1 ktuner goes a long ways based on some initial impressions I've read and I can't help but think they knew anyone serious about performance would tweak it to their liking which played into the more conservative and likely more reliable factory settings they rolled with.
The old Honda where you rev the piss out of the motor and listen to that signature vtec scream to get all of your power is dead and gone for better or worse.
02-25-2023, 07:22 PM
#49
Nice writeup! Hope you find the car that suits you best!
I will say, in slight defense of the engine, this is just a byproduct of the turbo era combined with Honda's typically conservative approach to power. I've had an 87 Accord, a 91 Prelude, 9th Gen Accord V6 and the type s is my first Acura product and yeah some of that signature Honda is gone now. Gone are the days of revving out my old Prelude to 8 grand or whatever the redline was or even the glorious J35 in my Accord that loved to scream. Turbos, which are mostly a product of regulations and efficiency/emissions standards than purely for performance, generally change the nature of the engine with all of the power being produced at lower RPM's and when you consider that, I'm sure you COULD rev the J30AC out well past 6000 without risk of damaging it but there's no point to doing so and overall acceleration would probably decrease as a result of the turbo falling off.
Considering that and looking at the transmission again, I think it's one of the best Honda transmissions I've ever had. It shifts lightning quick, rev matches on down shifts, knows exactly what gear to keep the car in for maximum power generally and downshifts generously when you'd expect it to like slowing down a bit for a curve and then it's right there in a lower gear ready to pull you out. It's honestly got to be one of the best transmissions Honda has ever put out (minus supercars) when you look at the overall picture of what it's trying to do (minus auto shifting in manual mode that's always disappointing).
The most disappointing thing is that Honda may have been a little too conservative with the power and boost but I think even a stage 1 ktuner goes a long ways based on some initial impressions I've read and I can't help but think they knew anyone serious about performance would tweak it to their liking which played into the more conservative and likely more reliable factory settings they rolled with.
The old Honda where you rev the piss out of the motor and listen to that signature vtec scream to get all of your power is dead and gone for better or worse.
I will say, in slight defense of the engine, this is just a byproduct of the turbo era combined with Honda's typically conservative approach to power. I've had an 87 Accord, a 91 Prelude, 9th Gen Accord V6 and the type s is my first Acura product and yeah some of that signature Honda is gone now. Gone are the days of revving out my old Prelude to 8 grand or whatever the redline was or even the glorious J35 in my Accord that loved to scream. Turbos, which are mostly a product of regulations and efficiency/emissions standards than purely for performance, generally change the nature of the engine with all of the power being produced at lower RPM's and when you consider that, I'm sure you COULD rev the J30AC out well past 6000 without risk of damaging it but there's no point to doing so and overall acceleration would probably decrease as a result of the turbo falling off.
Considering that and looking at the transmission again, I think it's one of the best Honda transmissions I've ever had. It shifts lightning quick, rev matches on down shifts, knows exactly what gear to keep the car in for maximum power generally and downshifts generously when you'd expect it to like slowing down a bit for a curve and then it's right there in a lower gear ready to pull you out. It's honestly got to be one of the best transmissions Honda has ever put out (minus supercars) when you look at the overall picture of what it's trying to do (minus auto shifting in manual mode that's always disappointing).
The most disappointing thing is that Honda may have been a little too conservative with the power and boost but I think even a stage 1 ktuner goes a long ways based on some initial impressions I've read and I can't help but think they knew anyone serious about performance would tweak it to their liking which played into the more conservative and likely more reliable factory settings they rolled with.
The old Honda where you rev the piss out of the motor and listen to that signature vtec scream to get all of your power is dead and gone for better or worse.
02-26-2023, 12:11 PM
#50
Air Vice Marshal
<big snip>
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
Suffice to say, I'm going to have to pass again on it. Maybe the MMC will see a revised turbo or tune that will address the engine.
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
Suffice to say, I'm going to have to pass again on it. Maybe the MMC will see a revised turbo or tune that will address the engine.
02-26-2023, 02:34 PM
#51
All in all, I think what this car needs to be great is a larger turbo. The one they currenly use is just too small and runs out of steam. I'd happily trade some of the low-end and mid-range for more revs and more boost up top. In its current state it just lacks excitement. Honestly, I think if they gave this car a better engine (better turbo?) this could take down the M340i as the performance darling of the segment. It doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher. Insane acceleration is already dominated by EVs anyways. The looks are there, the handling and steering is absolutely magnificent, the braking is good...it's just that the engine is not, and for a Honda product, that is very surprising and extremely frustrating because the car is sooooo close to being great.
The following users liked this post:
MarcoTLX (02-26-2023)
02-26-2023, 03:00 PM
#52
Nice review +1. I think for the powertrain, you need to take a step forward and look at it in its own right, then you can start to appreciate it.
J30AC... IMHO there are many design quirks (like the turbo piping/sizing and compact head you guys mentioned) that I don't understand if the goal is to have maximum performance. The engine indeed is forgettable on its own. What saved the show is the Type-S 10AT. The transmission is tuned to match the engine's characters well. Forget about manually shifting every gear, let the transmission do its job, with occasional pedal pulls for kickdown, and the powertrain starts to sing.The Type-S 10AT is infinitely quicker than the vanilla 10AT in gear selection and gear change. It keeps the engine in its ideal range more often than not, and does so more seamlessly. Having weaker top-end is really not a problem at all power-wise, because the fast upshift (in Acura's world) and tight gear ratios means the power you get at the next gear may actually be more than if you hang on to the redline.
I have been wondering why Honda cannot match BMW engines in the turbo era. I think it comes down to cost. My theory is that BMW run higher compression ratio, thus making more powerful off-boost. BMW then use air-to-water intercooler, so they can run more boost without the need to inject more fuels to cool the mixture. BMW also use twin-scroll turbo, which is more responsive by design. Finally Valvetronic might be an advantage because the throttle plate is always opened hence less resistance. Obviously, these choices bring extra cost, and I am not counting the higher pressure fuel injection on BMW.
J30AC... IMHO there are many design quirks (like the turbo piping/sizing and compact head you guys mentioned) that I don't understand if the goal is to have maximum performance. The engine indeed is forgettable on its own. What saved the show is the Type-S 10AT. The transmission is tuned to match the engine's characters well. Forget about manually shifting every gear, let the transmission do its job, with occasional pedal pulls for kickdown, and the powertrain starts to sing.The Type-S 10AT is infinitely quicker than the vanilla 10AT in gear selection and gear change. It keeps the engine in its ideal range more often than not, and does so more seamlessly. Having weaker top-end is really not a problem at all power-wise, because the fast upshift (in Acura's world) and tight gear ratios means the power you get at the next gear may actually be more than if you hang on to the redline.
I have been wondering why Honda cannot match BMW engines in the turbo era. I think it comes down to cost. My theory is that BMW run higher compression ratio, thus making more powerful off-boost. BMW then use air-to-water intercooler, so they can run more boost without the need to inject more fuels to cool the mixture. BMW also use twin-scroll turbo, which is more responsive by design. Finally Valvetronic might be an advantage because the throttle plate is always opened hence less resistance. Obviously, these choices bring extra cost, and I am not counting the higher pressure fuel injection on BMW.
02-26-2023, 09:47 PM
#53
It’s true that high revving VTEC engines are no more, but it doesn’t mean turbo motors can’t still be engaging and (relatively) high revving. The B58 motor for instance has a redline at 7000RPMs and pulls hard all the way through the powerband. That’s even a smidge higher than the redline for the J35 in the 3G Type S.
02-26-2023, 10:41 PM
#54
Y'all need to re-read what I wrote more closely. I never said it needed to be more powerful or faster than an M340i. All I said is that the car would be more engaging to drive if the power delivery was more linear and even, like that of the M340i. Of course, doing so would also likely make the car faster than it currently is, but I will repeat: "[The Type S] doesn't even need to be faster in a straight line, because the fun-to-drive quotient would be higher [than that of the M340i]." I don't believe a more linear power delivery is a cost issue; seems more like a conscious decision to make to prioritize low-end and mid-range.
As for the question about performance: performance goes beyond just being fast in a straight line. Yes, the M340i is faster in a straight line, but a Model 3 Performance is even faster in a straight line. Does that make the Tesla a better performance car than the M340i? No, because the M340i will easily outhandle the Tesla even if it's slower. I contend it's the same for the Type S. I've gotten a chance to hoon the M340i (actually M440i but tomato tomahto) and the steering is just really numb. Grip was fine but it was really hard to tell what the front tires were doing; there's just no tactile feel. Maybe for folks who just like going into a straight line, the M340i will also be a better performance car, but for folks who actually like turning the steering wheel, the gap is much closer. Give the Type S a better motor and even if it's still slower in a straight line, it could very well be the enthusiast car of choice because of the entire performance package (think about how the Caymen is a better performance car than many other cars faster than it in a straight line). The steering and handling really is that good, and for the BMW it really is that bad.
As for the question about performance: performance goes beyond just being fast in a straight line. Yes, the M340i is faster in a straight line, but a Model 3 Performance is even faster in a straight line. Does that make the Tesla a better performance car than the M340i? No, because the M340i will easily outhandle the Tesla even if it's slower. I contend it's the same for the Type S. I've gotten a chance to hoon the M340i (actually M440i but tomato tomahto) and the steering is just really numb. Grip was fine but it was really hard to tell what the front tires were doing; there's just no tactile feel. Maybe for folks who just like going into a straight line, the M340i will also be a better performance car, but for folks who actually like turning the steering wheel, the gap is much closer. Give the Type S a better motor and even if it's still slower in a straight line, it could very well be the enthusiast car of choice because of the entire performance package (think about how the Caymen is a better performance car than many other cars faster than it in a straight line). The steering and handling really is that good, and for the BMW it really is that bad.
Last edited by fiatlux; 02-26-2023 at 10:45 PM.
02-27-2023, 12:46 AM
#55
6G TLX-S
But with the modern Honda/Acura turbo engines that pack tons of more usable low-to-mid rpm torque, it becomes more civilized to drive a car equipped with an automatic gearbox without the need for the tranny to kick down a few gears in order to get some decent engine power. The only drawback is the miniscule turbo lag effect that can only eliminated by using superchargers instead of turbochargers.
02-27-2023, 08:42 AM
#56
Nice review +1. I think for the powertrain, you need to take a step forward and look at it in its own right, then you can start to appreciate it.
J30AC... IMHO there are many design quirks (like the turbo piping/sizing and compact head you guys mentioned) that I don't understand if the goal is to have maximum performance. The engine indeed is forgettable on its own. What saved the show is the Type-S 10AT. The transmission is tuned to match the engine's characters well. Forget about manually shifting every gear, let the transmission do its job, with occasional pedal pulls for kickdown, and the powertrain starts to sing.The Type-S 10AT is infinitely quicker than the vanilla 10AT in gear selection and gear change. It keeps the engine in its ideal range more often than not, and does so more seamlessly. Having weaker top-end is really not a problem at all power-wise, because the fast upshift (in Acura's world) and tight gear ratios means the power you get at the next gear may actually be more than if you hang on to the redline.
I have been wondering why Honda cannot match BMW engines in the turbo era. I think it comes down to cost. My theory is that BMW run higher compression ratio, thus making more powerful off-boost. BMW then use air-to-water intercooler, so they can run more boost without the need to inject more fuels to cool the mixture. BMW also use twin-scroll turbo, which is more responsive by design. Finally Valvetronic might be an advantage because the throttle plate is always opened hence less resistance. Obviously, these choices bring extra cost, and I am not counting the higher pressure fuel injection on BMW.
J30AC... IMHO there are many design quirks (like the turbo piping/sizing and compact head you guys mentioned) that I don't understand if the goal is to have maximum performance. The engine indeed is forgettable on its own. What saved the show is the Type-S 10AT. The transmission is tuned to match the engine's characters well. Forget about manually shifting every gear, let the transmission do its job, with occasional pedal pulls for kickdown, and the powertrain starts to sing.The Type-S 10AT is infinitely quicker than the vanilla 10AT in gear selection and gear change. It keeps the engine in its ideal range more often than not, and does so more seamlessly. Having weaker top-end is really not a problem at all power-wise, because the fast upshift (in Acura's world) and tight gear ratios means the power you get at the next gear may actually be more than if you hang on to the redline.
I have been wondering why Honda cannot match BMW engines in the turbo era. I think it comes down to cost. My theory is that BMW run higher compression ratio, thus making more powerful off-boost. BMW then use air-to-water intercooler, so they can run more boost without the need to inject more fuels to cool the mixture. BMW also use twin-scroll turbo, which is more responsive by design. Finally Valvetronic might be an advantage because the throttle plate is always opened hence less resistance. Obviously, these choices bring extra cost, and I am not counting the higher pressure fuel injection on BMW.
The transverse layout also makes it impossible to add 48V tech etc like the Germans have. I wonder if there is a way they can incorporate the tech now that the battery has moved to the rear? The system would still need to be tied in to the turbo somehow.
02-27-2023, 12:40 PM
#57
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,431
Received 1,598 Likes
on
961 Posts
Quick question:
Why did Acura use twin scroll vs. twin turbo? a bigger engine to produce more power relative to the weight of the car? I am not an engineer and honestly don't know the answer.
Cost?
Reliability and longevity?
Or other reasons?
Why did Acura use twin scroll vs. twin turbo? a bigger engine to produce more power relative to the weight of the car? I am not an engineer and honestly don't know the answer.
Cost?
Reliability and longevity?
Or other reasons?
02-27-2023, 12:44 PM
#58
My understanding of the twin scroll is it engages the turbo at lower RPM’s to improve torque etc.
The following users liked this post:
Tony Pac (02-27-2023)
02-27-2023, 02:29 PM
#59
A twin-scroll turbo is going to be cheaper and less complex than a sequential twin turbo setup. For an inline-six like the B58, a single twin-scroll makes a lot of sense because of the added complexity of hooking up two turbos to a single exhaust manifold. The benefit of a sequentail twin turbo (if there even is one) would be fairly incremental and not worth it.
In the case of the Acura's V6, they could have more easily went with twin turbo setup (either parallel or sequential), but a sequential twin turbo probably wasn't worth the extra cost, and a parallel twin turbo would have made big power but perhaps pushed the car well beyond the target they had. If they ever make a competitor to the top-tier performance models, you'd bet they'd have to use a twin turbo, but alas that seems like it'd never happen
A single twin scroll turbo is a good alternative to sequential twin turbos, but it's never going to stack up with parallel twin turbos. There's a reason why the M3, C63, RS5, and Giulia QV all use twin-turbos and not twin-scroll.
In the case of the Acura's V6, they could have more easily went with twin turbo setup (either parallel or sequential), but a sequential twin turbo probably wasn't worth the extra cost, and a parallel twin turbo would have made big power but perhaps pushed the car well beyond the target they had. If they ever make a competitor to the top-tier performance models, you'd bet they'd have to use a twin turbo, but alas that seems like it'd never happen
A single twin scroll turbo is a good alternative to sequential twin turbos, but it's never going to stack up with parallel twin turbos. There's a reason why the M3, C63, RS5, and Giulia QV all use twin-turbos and not twin-scroll.
Last edited by fiatlux; 02-27-2023 at 02:35 PM.
02-27-2023, 04:17 PM
#60
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,431
Received 1,598 Likes
on
961 Posts
A twin-scroll turbo is going to be cheaper and less complex than a sequential twin turbo setup. For an inline-six like the B58, a single twin-scroll makes a lot of sense because of the added complexity of hooking up two turbos to a single exhaust manifold. The benefit of a sequentail twin turbo (if there even is one) would be fairly incremental and not worth it.
In the case of the Acura's V6, they could have more easily went with twin turbo setup (either parallel or sequential), but a sequential twin turbo probably wasn't worth the extra cost, and a parallel twin turbo would have made big power but perhaps pushed the car well beyond the target they had. If they ever make a competitor to the top-tier performance models, you'd bet they'd have to use a twin turbo, but alas that seems like it'd never happen
A single twin scroll turbo is a good alternative to sequential twin turbos, but it's never going to stack up with parallel twin turbos. There's a reason why the M3, C63, RS5, and Giulia QV all use twin-turbos and not twin-scroll.
In the case of the Acura's V6, they could have more easily went with twin turbo setup (either parallel or sequential), but a sequential twin turbo probably wasn't worth the extra cost, and a parallel twin turbo would have made big power but perhaps pushed the car well beyond the target they had. If they ever make a competitor to the top-tier performance models, you'd bet they'd have to use a twin turbo, but alas that seems like it'd never happen
A single twin scroll turbo is a good alternative to sequential twin turbos, but it's never going to stack up with parallel twin turbos. There's a reason why the M3, C63, RS5, and Giulia QV all use twin-turbos and not twin-scroll.
02-27-2023, 04:48 PM
#61
A twin-scroll turbo is going to be cheaper and less complex than a sequential twin turbo setup. For an inline-six like the B58, a single twin-scroll makes a lot of sense because of the added complexity of hooking up two turbos to a single exhaust manifold. The benefit of a sequentail twin turbo (if there even is one) would be fairly incremental and not worth it.
In the case of the Acura's V6, they could have more easily went with twin turbo setup (either parallel or sequential), but a sequential twin turbo probably wasn't worth the extra cost, and a parallel twin turbo would have made big power but perhaps pushed the car well beyond the target they had. If they ever make a competitor to the top-tier performance models, you'd bet they'd have to use a twin turbo, but alas that seems like it'd never happen
A single twin scroll turbo is a good alternative to sequential twin turbos, but it's never going to stack up with parallel twin turbos. There's a reason why the M3, C63, RS5, and Giulia QV all use twin-turbos and not twin-scroll.
In the case of the Acura's V6, they could have more easily went with twin turbo setup (either parallel or sequential), but a sequential twin turbo probably wasn't worth the extra cost, and a parallel twin turbo would have made big power but perhaps pushed the car well beyond the target they had. If they ever make a competitor to the top-tier performance models, you'd bet they'd have to use a twin turbo, but alas that seems like it'd never happen
A single twin scroll turbo is a good alternative to sequential twin turbos, but it's never going to stack up with parallel twin turbos. There's a reason why the M3, C63, RS5, and Giulia QV all use twin-turbos and not twin-scroll.
02-27-2023, 05:02 PM
#62
I really hope somebody goes and sticks a slightly larger turbo under the hood of the TLX-S to see what she can handle. P2R seems like the only real ones who have been heavily developing things for the TLX-S. With the KTuner tunes out, hopefully they (or anyone else) can start moving into the realm of a turbo upgrade.
02-27-2023, 09:41 PM
#63
02-27-2023, 09:42 PM
#64
A twin-scroll turbo is going to be cheaper and less complex than a sequential twin turbo setup. For an inline-six like the B58, a single twin-scroll makes a lot of sense because of the added complexity of hooking up two turbos to a single exhaust manifold. The benefit of a sequentail twin turbo (if there even is one) would be fairly incremental and not worth it.
In the case of the Acura's V6, they could have more easily went with twin turbo setup (either parallel or sequential), but a sequential twin turbo probably wasn't worth the extra cost, and a parallel twin turbo would have made big power but perhaps pushed the car well beyond the target they had. If they ever make a competitor to the top-tier performance models, you'd bet they'd have to use a twin turbo, but alas that seems like it'd never happen
A single twin scroll turbo is a good alternative to sequential twin turbos, but it's never going to stack up with parallel twin turbos. There's a reason why the M3, C63, RS5, and Giulia QV all use twin-turbos and not twin-scroll.
In the case of the Acura's V6, they could have more easily went with twin turbo setup (either parallel or sequential), but a sequential twin turbo probably wasn't worth the extra cost, and a parallel twin turbo would have made big power but perhaps pushed the car well beyond the target they had. If they ever make a competitor to the top-tier performance models, you'd bet they'd have to use a twin turbo, but alas that seems like it'd never happen
A single twin scroll turbo is a good alternative to sequential twin turbos, but it's never going to stack up with parallel twin turbos. There's a reason why the M3, C63, RS5, and Giulia QV all use twin-turbos and not twin-scroll.
The real reason likely for the smaller turbo was to minimize turbo lag, without the need to keep boost high they went with smaller turbo.
My theory is, this was a last minute change by the beancounters the original turbo V6 was supposed to have a timing chain from the schematics that were leaked. Also given the target cars the TLX-S was benchmarking and the weight of the car there had to be more grunt to push this thing. They were going German head hunting I believe but something changed either EV shift cut engine budget or they ran into technical issues with powertrain that wasnt worth figuring out, which was reason for delay at launch. There is no way they built a whole new engine plant for a reworked J30 that they could have built on the same assembly line, but of course we will never know.
02-27-2023, 11:42 PM
#65
True, but heat would be an issue with a transverse layout twin turbo engine as well. The engine bay is already a nightmare with the turbo sitting on top, imagine plumbing for two turbos.
The real reason likely for the smaller turbo was to minimize turbo lag, without the need to keep boost high they went with smaller turbo.
My theory is, this was a last minute change by the beancounters the original turbo V6 was supposed to have a timing chain from the schematics that were leaked. Also given the target cars the TLX-S was benchmarking and the weight of the car there had to be more grunt to push this thing. They were going German head hunting I believe but something changed either EV shift cut engine budget or they ran into technical issues with powertrain that wasnt worth figuring out, which was reason for delay at launch. There is no way they built a whole new engine plant for a reworked J30 that they could have built on the same assembly line, but of course we will never know.
The real reason likely for the smaller turbo was to minimize turbo lag, without the need to keep boost high they went with smaller turbo.
My theory is, this was a last minute change by the beancounters the original turbo V6 was supposed to have a timing chain from the schematics that were leaked. Also given the target cars the TLX-S was benchmarking and the weight of the car there had to be more grunt to push this thing. They were going German head hunting I believe but something changed either EV shift cut engine budget or they ran into technical issues with powertrain that wasnt worth figuring out, which was reason for delay at launch. There is no way they built a whole new engine plant for a reworked J30 that they could have built on the same assembly line, but of course we will never know.
02-28-2023, 02:30 AM
#66
6G TLX-S
For reference, the Porsche Cayenne has a whole bunch of engine options. One of them is a 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6, and another is a 2.9L twin-turbo V6. I believe this is the best way to compare single-turbo 3L-V6 and twin-turbo 3L-V6 engines using similar Porsche engine technologies.
The Porsche 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6 generates 335hp, which is exactly same as the output generated by the Acura 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6 engine.
However, all hell breaks loose with the twin-turbo V6. The Porsche 2.9L twin-turbo V6 generates 434hp, which is almost 100 hp more than the single-turbo V6 even with 100cc smaller displacement. The Acura 3.5L twin-turbo V6, as used on the NSX, cranks out 520hp.
So if Acura is willing to drop in a twin-turbo V6 into the Type-S machines, it will definitely has a winning hand.
The Porsche 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6 generates 335hp, which is exactly same as the output generated by the Acura 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6 engine.
However, all hell breaks loose with the twin-turbo V6. The Porsche 2.9L twin-turbo V6 generates 434hp, which is almost 100 hp more than the single-turbo V6 even with 100cc smaller displacement. The Acura 3.5L twin-turbo V6, as used on the NSX, cranks out 520hp.
So if Acura is willing to drop in a twin-turbo V6 into the Type-S machines, it will definitely has a winning hand.
02-28-2023, 08:41 AM
#67
For reference, the Porsche Cayenne has a whole bunch of engine options. One of them is a 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6, and another is a 2.9L twin-turbo V6. I believe this is the best way to compare single-turbo 3L-V6 and twin-turbo 3L-V6 engines using similar Porsche engine technologies.
The Porsche 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6 generates 335hp, which is exactly same as the output generated by the Acura 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6 engine.
However, all hell breaks loose with the twin-turbo V6. The Porsche 2.9L twin-turbo V6 generates 434hp, which is almost 100 hp more than the single-turbo V6 even with 100cc smaller displacement. The Acura 3.5L twin-turbo V6, as used on the NSX, cranks out 520hp.
So if Acura is willing to drop in a twin-turbo V6 into the Type-S machines, it will definitely has a winning hand.
The Porsche 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6 generates 335hp, which is exactly same as the output generated by the Acura 3.0L twin-scroll single-turbo V6 engine.
However, all hell breaks loose with the twin-turbo V6. The Porsche 2.9L twin-turbo V6 generates 434hp, which is almost 100 hp more than the single-turbo V6 even with 100cc smaller displacement. The Acura 3.5L twin-turbo V6, as used on the NSX, cranks out 520hp.
So if Acura is willing to drop in a twin-turbo V6 into the Type-S machines, it will definitely has a winning hand.
That being said, the folks in the MKIV Supra community largely move to single turbos for the cost & simplicity, while still maintaining the potential to make some stupid levels of power. Hopefully somebody will stick a larger snail in the TLX-S soon.
02-28-2023, 08:48 AM
#68
02-28-2023, 01:09 PM
#69
Air Vice Marshal
02-28-2023, 05:08 PM
#70
03-01-2023, 08:28 AM
#72
6G TLX-S
The xAT isn't able to do lightning quick downshifts as DSG trannies. Even in the paddle mode, it will take a second to two for the auto trannies to downshift a gear or two to get instant power.
I have great respect with the TSX. The RealTime TSX had won 4 Constructors' Championships back in the 2000's in SCCA - World Challenge Cup. However, the winning TSX wasn't using the factory auto transmission. It used a semi-auto gearbox, similar to the ones used in F1, which could do upshifts and downshifts in within a fraction of a second.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WRXtranceformed
3G TL (2004-2008)
14
08-17-2010 07:34 AM