When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Does anyone know if the Type S braces between the back seats and the trunk are somewhat easily removeable? Would be good to have that option, in case there was a need for transporting something a little bulkier. From time to time, I'd want to be able to put my bike in there, but I doubt it would fit between the X shaped braces.
Removing the brace for any length of time most likely voids the warranty. If this is a deal-breaker, I suggest looking at a different car.
Not really, Law states that the dealer has to show that the removal/alteration of a part caused the failure. If you remove the brace and then your headlamp stops working a week later, the dealer can't say it was due to the bracing. If you remove the bracing and then end up with trunk rattles where the braces were, then they can decline the repair stating alterations.
I understand why Guy is considering removal of the brace, and it makes sense for him to pose the question. But perhaps many of the responders are missing the most obvious point. Acura most likely has designed and installed the brace as part of the structural integrity of the car. Given the constant drive to save/eliminate weight and excess costs by all manufacturers its a very good bet that if the brace wasn't needed then it wouldn't be there. Hopefully, Guy will be able to find a better solution (roof or trunk rack for example) that gives him the utility that he wants.
I understand why Guy is considering removal of the brace, and it makes sense for him to pose the question. But perhaps many of the responders are missing the most obvious point. Acura most likely has designed and installed the brace as part of the structural integrity of the car. Given the constant drive to save/eliminate weight and excess costs by all manufacturers its a very good bet that if the brace wasn't needed then it wouldn't be there. Hopefully, Guy will be able to find a better solution (roof or trunk rack for example) that gives him the utility that he wants.
I don’t think it’s necessary at all. It’s just a Type S add on anyway. The car would be fine with or without but I’d leave it since I drive the car for what it is.
This is from Acuras press release:
”Specific areas of reinforcement start in the front, with additional structural braces linking the shock towers, and triangulating to the firewall to create a stiffer “box” for the engine and transmission. In the rear, steel reinforcements behind the rear seats create an “A-Brace”, stiffening the rear bulkhead and significantly improving rear tire contact patch under aggressive cornering. Additional structural enhancements include an extra mid-floor crossmember and stiffer rear wheel arches. Total curb weight for the TLX Type S is 4,221 pounds, or 4,200 pounds with the available lightweight wheels”.
I understand why Guy is considering removal of the brace, and it makes sense for him to pose the question. But perhaps many of the responders are missing the most obvious point. Acura most likely has designed and installed the brace as part of the structural integrity of the car. Given the constant drive to save/eliminate weight and excess costs by all manufacturers its a very good bet that if the brace wasn't needed then it wouldn't be there. Hopefully, Guy will be able to find a better solution (roof or trunk rack for example) that gives him the utility that he wants.
That's the reason why I said it would void the warranty. You don't have to be a mechanical engineer to understand that a brace gives strength. It wouldn't be there if Acura thought it wasn't necessary.
Since the Type-S is using a stiffened body than the regular non-Type-S, I suspect that if the rear seat A-Brace is bolted on and not welded on, then it is expected that the A-Brace can be removed temporary for extra trunk access.
With the temporary removal of the A-Brace, don't throw the Type-S into corners the same way as if the A-Brace is still there, because there will be body flex that will compromise handling performance of the car.
That fugly brace is one of several reasons I did not buy a TLX-S. If something like this has to be added for sufficient structural rigidity/integrity, the car wasn't designed right in the first place.
I understand why Guy is considering removal of the brace, and it makes sense for him to pose the question. But perhaps many of the responders are missing the most obvious point. Acura most likely has designed and installed the brace as part of the structural integrity of the car. Given the constant drive to save/eliminate weight and excess costs by all manufacturers its a very good bet that if the brace wasn't needed then it wouldn't be there. Hopefully, Guy will be able to find a better solution (roof or trunk rack for example) that gives him the utility that he wants.
the brace is there for handling purposes to tighten up the rear. You want to stick a bike in there, buy a subaru
bilirubin (05-06-2022),djhtsx (05-06-2022),F23A4 (06-10-2023),KidK (05-09-2022),neuronbob (06-10-2023),wilztlxs (05-06-2022) and 1 others liked this post. (Show less...)
That fugly brace is one of several reasons I did not buy a TLX-S. If something like this has to be added for sufficient structural rigidity/integrity, the car wasn't designed right in the first place.
you didn't buy the car, one reason being a trunk brace that helps stabalize the rear on an AWD car? top kek
That fugly brace is one of several reasons I did not buy a TLX-S. If something like this has to be added for sufficient structural rigidity/integrity, the car wasn't designed right in the first place.
Acura should have skipped a structural brace so that one guy on the internet can consider purchasing a car. /s
A similar story to yours, I once almost didn’t buy a car because it came with all-season tires. Then I realized I could replace them.
Last edited by richii0207; 05-06-2022 at 10:44 AM.
That fugly brace is one of several reasons I did not buy a TLX-S. If something like this has to be added for sufficient structural rigidity/integrity, the car wasn't designed right in the first place.
That fugly brace is one of several reasons I did not buy a TLX-S. If something like this has to be added for sufficient structural rigidity/integrity, the car wasn't designed right in the first place.
You have no idea what you're writing about there. The brace is a structural bolt-in augmentation to the uni-body which also had several additional welded gusset sheet stock pieces in the front suspension area as well as the rear suspension area, it's done quite often in a variety of places for most auto makers.
That's the reason why I said it would void the warranty. You don't have to be a mechanical engineer to understand that a brace gives strength. It wouldn't be there if Acura thought it wasn't necessary.
Removing the brace does not void the warranty, it's purely a augmentation structural piece to enhance the rigidity of the chassis, it's increased the load performance of the chassis but removing it is not a safety or warranty concern.
Removing the brace does not void the warranty, it's purely a augmentation structural piece to enhance the rigidity of the chassis, it's increased the load performance of the chassis but removing it is not a safety or warranty concern.
Thanks, that's good to know. Are the bolts accessible or a PITA? Just want to know if it looks easy to remove...if it was absolutely necessary.
Thanks, that's good to know. Are the bolts accessible or a PITA? Just want to know if it looks easy to remove...if it was absolutely necessary.
I have never seen one in person but it appears from pics and schematics that the fasteners are covered up by the plastic covers in the corners and top center of bracing. Once those covers are off the fasteners I believe are assessable.
Removing the brace does not void the warranty, it's purely a augmentation structural piece to enhance the rigidity of the chassis, it's increased the load performance of the chassis but removing it is not a safety or warranty concern.
It's been well established in earlier Type S threads that other car companies are able to perform a similar function and yet hide the brace better.
It's been well established in earlier Type S threads that other car companies are able to perform a similar function and yet hide the brace better.
This TLX Type S brace looks like an afterthought.
The slanted/angled pattern provides more rigidity than a single bar which can easily be installed under the rear speaker are. Unfortunately the slanted pattern creates the physical barrier but can be simply removed by removing the accessible bolts.
Acura should have skipped a structural brace so that one guy on the internet can consider purchasing a car. /s
A similar story to yours, I once almost didn’t buy a car because it came with all-season tires. Then I realized I could replace them.
Oh, Honey- it would take a lot more than an unobstructed pass-through for a lot more people than "one guy on the internet" to buy a TLX-S. But thanks anyway, dear.
It's been well established in earlier Type S threads that other car companies are able to perform a similar function and yet hide the brace better.
This TLX Type S brace looks like an afterthought.
No, it hasn't be "well established in earlier Type S threads ...", unless you were on the TLX 2G design team as neither you nor I know nothing of the mechanical engineering goals the team was striving for.
Oh, Honey- it would take a lot more than an unobstructed pass-through for a lot more people than "one guy on the internet" to buy a TLX-S. But thanks anyway, dear.
I hope so when you’re making a vehicle purchase. OP didn’t ask for your opinion on it, only if it was possible to be easily removed.
Last edited by richii0207; 05-08-2022 at 10:03 AM.
No, it hasn't be "well established in earlier Type S threads ...", unless you were on the TLX 2G design team as neither you nor I know nothing of the mechanical engineering goals the team was striving for.
Following discussion was made almost a year ago to the day:
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
I'm guessing the engineers wanted as stiff a structure as they could design/engineer so they took a stiff chassis and made it stiffer. The K and V bracing are some of the most efficient geometric force/load structure there are in mechanical engineering. Acura/Honda are not the first to use it, many other cars have added it to their structural designs to stiffen up a chassis. K or V bracing are used all over modern unibodies, sometimes added exclusively to certain models.
Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory
I understand bracing even though I am not a trained engineer. I did have 5 months schooling on armored vehicle recovery & repair in the US Army. Was section head with a pair of M-88's & crews to manage. I have also built cages & roll bars to NHRA standards.
I built this car from a 1981 280ZX T-Top. When you cut the roof off a closed car it has all the rigidity of a banana skin. It has a fabricated second frame including upper body work support. Car survived 3 kids going through high school & university, one on her first job. Car was donated to Make A Wish about 6 years ago when I needed garage room to built the car Nexx gets all upset over. The trunk lid is the T-Top rear hatch with the glass removed & sheeted over. A cowel was built behind the seats to connect the two sides & is tube supported. Top is a modified TR-8 frame with custom fabric.
It seems we agree that they added the brace to stiffen the unibody. Part I don't care for it they did not directly reinforce the unibody structure itself but added something JC Whitney would sell. Guess they were trapped into it by having to build to a price. Its a good inexpensive solution. But think how much nicer the whole lineup would be with the upgraded unibody. Marketing could say we stiffened the car by 70% instead of 50%. But based on a lot of the comments made here about how great the brace is I guess in this case they know their customers.
Originally Posted by Edward'TLS
It is best if the extra support is a square structure. Then at least the opening, no matter how small, can still be used.
But if a square brace doesn't cut it, what Acura should have done is to bolt the back seat shut to cover the /\ brace on the Type-S. What good is a backseat opening that can be seen through but cannot be used.
Just give the Type-S a non-fold-down back seat with a ski bag pass through, just as it has always been for the 4G TL.
As an engineer myself, I agree with Bear and Edward that if they really wanted to, Acura could have had a more elegant solution but probably ran out of time, money, or both.
Following discussion was made almost a year ago to the day:
As an engineer myself, I agree with Bear and Edward that if they really wanted to, Acura could have had a more elegant solution but probably ran out of time, money, or both.
Again, this thread was started as a question if it was removable. Not if we liked its cosmetics. Back on topic as a service to the OP so he’s not wasting time reading through all these irrelevant posts to find his answer.
I hope so when you’re making a vehicle purchase. OP didn’t ask for your opinion on it, only if it was possible to be easily removed.
Hmmmm? And why did he want to be able to remove it? Because it's a P.I.T.A. obstacle:
Originally Posted by GuyLedouche
Does anyone know if the Type S braces between the back seats and the trunk are somewhat easily removeable? Would be good to have that option, in case there was a need for transporting something a little bulkier. From time to time, I'd want to be able to put my bike in there, but I doubt it would fit between the X shaped braces.
And dear, nobody asked for your opinion either. Cheers! 😁
Following discussion was made almost a year ago to the day:
As an engineer myself, I agree with Bear and Edward that if they really wanted to, Acura could have had a more elegant solution but probably ran out of time, money, or both.
What's wrong with engineers? I think Acura's budget is too focused on marketing versus actually engineering. Why is it then that sportbacks don't need this extra bracing? Curious if the Integra Type-S will also have a brace.
If it can be removed then it's not a core structural component since it would never pass safety standards. It'd be wielded in. Type-S' extra weight is in the front anyways, regular TLX is just fine without. And if no one is on the track, it's definitely not a core component.
Last edited by pyrodan007; 05-12-2022 at 11:29 AM.
What's wrong with engineers? I think Acura's budget is too focused on marketing versus actually engineering. Why is it then that sportbacks don't need this extra bracing? Curious if the Integra Type-S will also have a brace.
If it can be removed then it's not a core structural component since it would never pass safety standards. It'd be wielded in. Type-S' extra weight is in the front anyways, regular TLX is just fine without. And if no one is on the track, it's definitely not a core component.
engineers are book smart, they don't have the slightest idea how the real world works. I personally think they're overpaid nerds.
This is also not just a random comment. I see poorly engineered things on a daily basis in my field and its beyond frustrating.
Does anyone know if the Type S braces between the back seats and the trunk are somewhat easily removeable? Would be good to have that option, in case there was a need for transporting something a little bulkier. From time to time, I'd want to be able to put my bike in there, but I doubt it would fit between the X shaped braces.
I'm not sure if that's a blind rivet head or socket cap or lag bolt as the resolution of the picture above is unfocused to discern. But looks like you can take the front cosmetic cover off then get access to the 2 PLS bolts. Hopefully there's enough clearance you can simply swing them out of the way without the flanges obstructing the rotation.
The 2021 TLX is an improvement over the legacy design that was formerly bolt on, versus the current monocoque ring structure, with added cross brace for improved torsional stiffness. No different from the front sway bars on the shock towers in the engine bay to mitigate body roll. For instance I was helping a buddy service his older M4, and we had to remove the three point front sway bar just to get access to drain the oil catch can. Honda/Acura engineers could also use something as a shear web, very thin like on the back of the bookshelf to give torsional rigidity, effectively closing out of the opening, the difficulty though is making it quick detach structurally, fastened gusset plates, or becomes a quick detach hatch. To improve on weight could be made out of carbon fiber as well. But as someone eluded to earlier, typically you're operating within budgetary constraints with respect to material selection, COTS with supply chain issues and all. They, Honda could use captive fasteners designs, COTS, like Aloca or Avibanks for instance, they already use some plastic ones on some cover panels, like the one to get access to the brake fluid reservoir.
I'm not sure if that's a blind rivet head or socket cap or lag bolt as the resolution of the picture above is unfocused to discern. But looks like you can take the front cosmetic cover off then get access to the 2 PLS bolts. Hopefully there's enough clearance you can simply swing them out of the way without the flanges obstructing the rotation.
The 2021 TLX is an improvement over the legacy design that was formerly bolt on, versus the current monocoque ring structure, with added cross brace for improved torsional stiffness. No different from the front sway bars on the shock towers in the engine bay to mitigate body roll. For instance I was helping a buddy service his older M4, and we had to remove the three point front sway bar just to get access to drain the oil catch can. Honda/Acura engineers could also use something as a shear web, very thin like on the back of the bookshelf to give torsional rigidity, effectively closing out of the opening, the difficulty though is making it quick detach structurally, fastened gusset plates, or becomes a quick detach hatch. To improve on weight could be made out of carbon fiber as well. But as someone eluded to earlier, typically you're operating within budgetary constraints with respect to material selection, COTS with supply chain issues and all. They, Honda could use captive fasteners designs, COTS, like Aloca or Avibanks for instance, they already use some plastic ones on some cover panels, like the one to get access to the brake fluid reservoir.
Want to bring this thread back to life. Has anyone attempted to do this process on there Non-Type S model?. Wonder if this is a bolt on as I don't see it on the diagram.
Just to update so I found out in order to add the brace for non Type S you needed 3 parts 8, 19 and 49
Part 49 need to be welded in order to put the brace from what my friend in Honda HQ say. From the looks of it, there's a lot of
work and not worth doing..
That fugly brace is one of several reasons I did not buy a TLX-S. If something like this has to be added for sufficient structural rigidity/integrity, the car wasn't designed right in the first place.
Hit the nail on the head. If they felt the need to add that brace taking it out seems like a bad idea. Not as bad as it being needed in the first place. Frankly it's hard to believe a car with it's HP would need that at all but there must have been a reason. I don't put the rear seats down much in my car but with that contraption I wouldn't bother.
Even though the TLX Type-S doesn't excel in straight line acceleration performance, but all these extra braces and reinforcements make the TLX-S a superb handling machine.
Even though the TLX Type-S doesn't excel in straight line acceleration performance, but all these extra braces and reinforcements make the TLX-S a superb handling machine.
No doubt. My question: does it handle remarkably better than say a 200lb lighter A-Spec SH-AWD running a set of Continental Extremecontact DWS06 Plus rubber (instead of the touring oriented Turanzas)?
05-03-2022, 09:46 PM
