Car & Driver: These Are the Quickest Front-Wheel-Drive Cars We’ve Ever Tested(So Far)
07-03-2018, 04:58 AM
#1
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Car & Driver: These Are the Quickest Front-Wheel-Drive Cars We’ve Ever Tested(So Far)
07-03-2018, 10:46 AM
#2
Wow.
It's been downhill for Acura ever since. 
2004 Acura TL A-Spec Manual – 5.6 seconds (tie)
Nearly from its inception, Acura has been a symbol of front-wheel-drive performance, what with cars such as the Integra quickly becoming sport-compact icons in the 1980s and 1990s. Later, in the late 1990s and early naughts, the TL sedan picked up the mantle, with the sharply styled third-generation version arguably being the sportiest iteration. In its higher-performance A-Spec trim, a 2004 TL with its strong 3.2-liter V-6 engine and a slick-shifting six-speed manual transmission sprinted from zero to 60 mph in just 5.6 seconds and did the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 99 mph in our testing.
Nearly from its inception, Acura has been a symbol of front-wheel-drive performance, what with cars such as the Integra quickly becoming sport-compact icons in the 1980s and 1990s. Later, in the late 1990s and early naughts, the TL sedan picked up the mantle, with the sharply styled third-generation version arguably being the sportiest iteration. In its higher-performance A-Spec trim, a 2004 TL with its strong 3.2-liter V-6 engine and a slick-shifting six-speed manual transmission sprinted from zero to 60 mph in just 5.6 seconds and did the quarter-mile in 14.3 seconds at 99 mph in our testing.
07-03-2018, 06:34 PM
#3
As always, 0-60 is mainly an indicator of traction.
For all its inherent benefits, you won't see a FWD vehicle these days with much more than 300 lb/ft at the wheels, no matter how good its suspension is.
That said I still want a CTR.
For all its inherent benefits, you won't see a FWD vehicle these days with much more than 300 lb/ft at the wheels, no matter how good its suspension is.
That said I still want a CTR.
The following 3 users liked this post by Costco:
07-03-2018, 11:43 PM
#4
Punk Rocker
This is exactly what I have been screaming about Honda ditching the venerable V6 from the Accord for 2018:
The 2.0T and 10-speed auto combo on the new Accord is just better in every single way than the heavier, thirstier and slower V6 from the last Accord other than sound. Its faster not only in terms of performance but also faster to rev, and it also saves a significant amount of weight. Besides, the torque delivery is not only fatter and higher than the V6 but it is all available just off of idle (1500 rpm) so there's really no lag to speak of. For me personally, I am overjoyed that Honda decided to go the "slightly detuned CTR" engine route for the new Accord because its a great engine that suits my driving style far better than the old V6 did. I drive 100 mile commute every day, all on the hwy, and while my Genesis sedan 3.8 does respectable (I get 28-30 mpg on average) I imagine that I will easily be able to top 40 mpg in the 2.0T Accord on average, which is nice when you have to refuel every 4 days! Obviously if mileage was my only concern there are even far better options available, but with the 2.0T in the new Accord I don't feel like I have to sacrifice any performance (and in fact its slightly faster) and the 10-speed auto really accentuates both qualities I am looking for in my next car: performance AND efficiency.
2018 Honda Accord 2.0T Automatic – 5.5 seconds (tie)
There’s a running joke in our Backfires comment section that nearly any car can be beaten in a straight line by an Accord V-6. Not true. One example—next to, yes, several muscle cars and exotics—is Honda’s own 10th-generation Accord sedan, which ditched its longtime V-6 option for a turbocharged four-cylinder. A 2.0T sedan beat the quickest example of its six-cylinder predecessor at the track. The zero-to-60-mph times might be identical, but this fully loaded Touring sedan managed to just barely break the tie with its quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds at a trap speed of 102 mph, a measly 1 mph quicker than the 2013 coupe that’s earlier on this list.
07-04-2018, 06:51 AM
#5
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Honestly, my TLX V6 returned an average of 35 mpg during a road trip from Nashville Tenn to central NJ while in sport mode. Not bad for a car that’s good for 0-100 in 13.3 seconds , or marginally quicker than the Accord 2.0T (on paper anyway). Definitely an example of performance and efficiency. 
But the shift in powertrain from the V6 6AT to the 2.0T 10AT makes sense overall.
But the shift in powertrain from the V6 6AT to the 2.0T 10AT makes sense overall.
Last edited by F23A4; 07-04-2018 at 06:56 AM.
07-04-2018, 11:38 AM
#6
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,634
Received 2,328 Likes
on
1,308 Posts
I drove my '17 Accord V6 from Portland to Phoenix and got 34 mpg overall. Not bad considering the 19" wheels and the fact I was doing 80+ for a significant amount of the trip.
My CR-Z has been putting over 200 whp and torque (can make more but traction issues/worried about internals and axles) and is possibly as fast if not faster than my Accord. I'll be driving it this weekend from Portland to Phoenix, hoping for at least 42 mpg
Having said all that, the new Accord 2.0 is very impressive and one reflash away from being incredibly awesome.
My CR-Z has been putting over 200 whp and torque (can make more but traction issues/worried about internals and axles) and is possibly as fast if not faster than my Accord. I'll be driving it this weekend from Portland to Phoenix, hoping for at least 42 mpg
Having said all that, the new Accord 2.0 is very impressive and one reflash away from being incredibly awesome.
07-05-2018, 05:18 PM
#7
looks like C&d has the tlx at 5.7 fwd. Wonder if it had the same 10 speed if it would be just as quick or quicker. Also why didnt they keep the 8 speed dct unit from the 2.4 model? paired with the v6 it probably close to low 5 secs .
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post