wawa2010

I recently watched a video about test drive from youtube, the tester showed that the car 0-60 mile is almost 7.7 seconds which suroeised me. How come a car with 290hp and awd drivetrain is that slow? Anyone has any idea? I do renember even a civic si can do around 8 seconds, how come?

Thanks for any thought

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Hmmm, that sounds awfully slow, I mean, the 3G TLs with manual transmissions were clocked at under six seconds, and even the autotragic models were in the six second range.

Maybe the 2018 TLX is just really heavy.

mondster

Seems like the 0 to 60 of the 4 cylinder. I believe most reviews showed a 5.8 0 to 60 for the shawd, 5.7 for the fwd

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

MUCH more believable.

NBP04TL4ME

I would agree

Denali05

I supposed the review you watched was from TFLcar which quoted 7.7 seconds.

The 0-60 test was done at 1 mile above sea level which explains why it was much slower. The NA V6 won't be able to output as much power compared to the turbocharged engines at higher altitudes due to air density differences.

dmski

With a good launch you should be able to did 5.5 in SH-AWD.

wreak

Yeah those TFL guys do nothing but spread false information, whose bright idea was it over there to test 0-60 times at a track 1mile above sea level. Just stupid if you ask me and I actually happen to like the guys that shoot those video but damn move to a new track at sea level for gods sake.

ultrapogi

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Of course the reverse can be true for turbocharged cars with a critical altitude above 5280'; for such cars it is possible for them to achieve quicker 0-60 and quarter mile times at altitude versus seal lever. Why? Because the turbo can still bring the engine to full power, but the air resistance on the car body is lower.

F23A4

Sounds spot on re: FWD. While I only ran my PAWS V6 twice ever (and struggled off the line mightily), I managed a 9.446 sec @ 77.17mph...which comes in at around 5.7 seconds for 0-60. It also matches the time reported by C/D as well.

BEAR-AvHistory

1/8 mile track? Be about 100mph in the 1/4, agree fits high 5's

F23A4

No sir, it was 1/4 mile run but my time slip details the 1/8 time/speed.

BEAR-AvHistory

Interesting, was guessing about 23MPH over the second 1/8, how close was I?

Last personal run I have any data for was 90.430 in 8.062. Went on to 114.529 for a 24mph gain in the second 1/8.

F23A4

Unfortunately, I wasn't as successful with only 20 mph over the 2nd 1/8. Using IT-speak, I chalk that up to user error: launching w/TCS on, normal mode (IDS) and A/C cranking (hot day). I was hoping for some redemption runs that day but Englishtown is infamous for paying $30 to get only two runs in. (so glad they're out of the drag racing biz) That said, I've yet to have the time to get back to the track. But I'm fairly confident that it's quicker than a 14.5 @ 97mph and I really want to see how it does in Sport+ mode....with the TCS turned off.....and maybe the AC turned off as well.

Mr. ShawnJ007

Another "shit gas" post. I can tell that this vehicle has regular gas in it. I saw this video a week ago and immediately thought that something was wrong with the responsiveness.

There's another video out there with two guys and i noticed the same thing.

Acura needs to consider putting in an alert which informs drivers that subpar gas is being burned and to expect less than optimal performance.

wreak

That video has nothing to do with bad gas, those guys know enough to only put premium in the car its the fact that they're running 0-60 times 1 mile above sea level.

Christopher.

As others have said, the slow time is due to running the test at high altitude.

However, I must point out that in all testing that I've seen done Premium gas shows zero improvement in either speed or mileage for a stock TLX.

Of course, we would expect that "performance tuning" would enable extracting more power out of higher octane gas?

BEAR-AvHistory

Interesting comment on gas octane. The car manufactures are lobbying to eliminate 87 & make 91 the new regular. They claim better performance, economy & need 91 to make the new CAFE numbers.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

And then this article pops up on the internet:

• https://www.torquenews.com/1083/myth...urbo-advantage

wreak

On the topic of octane the new Mazda 6 with the 2.5L turbo has 227hp at 89 Octane, but Mazda claims that if you can find 93 Octane that number bumps to 250hp.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

That's a fairly significant bump, our GTI only yielded a bump of about 10 HP between 87 AKI and 93 AKI.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

kinda cool that the auto industry is pushing for 95 AKI standard.

MOAR POWAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. ShawnJ007

I'm not even going to bother debating with you if you believe that, you clearly don't know how internal combustion engines work. Go ahead, keep putting cheap gas in your car but don't spread false information for others to believe and harm their vehicles with too.

Our engines have incredibly high compression rates of 11.5:1 and as such require higher octane fuels to operate optimally. We need at least 91 Octane because cheaper gas will have lower octane ratings and will combust well before the engine finishes compressing the air/fuel mixture.

Christopher.

"you clearly" didn't read my post carefully then - the actual testing I've seen published comparing regular to premium gas in, specifically, the (stock) Acura TLX showed no measurable improvement in either performance or mileage for Premium over Regular gas.

I did not say that in other cases, with other cars, that Premium doesn't or can't provide increased performance (including, but not limited to being nesc. to prevent "knocking" or computer reduced performance nesc. to prevent such knocking when the ECU detects lower than specified octane gasoline, etc.).

My statement above [in the post you quoted], in no way, came from a lack of understanding, regardless of how much or how little I understand, I was simply making a statement of fact, that from any and all scientific testing I have read, for the "un tuned" non-turbo stock Acura TLX, using Premium gas over Regular did not exhibit an increase in gas millage or performance within the test parameters of that study.

I also did not state that the TLX engine's relatively high compression ratio would be guaranteed, by me, to "work just fine" on Regular gas because whether or not it does, I do not personally feel qualified to assure someone else that their car will work just as well on regular over the long term. I'm not sure for myself even, so, since the average total cost per year for using premium gas doesn't add up to all that much, I figure I should probably just go ahead and use it in my 2018 V6 TLX until I have further reason to trust that Regular gas is safe to use with my engine. I do know, however, that one should not expect any significant gains in performance or gas mileage from using Premium gas in their TLX over regular gas, based on Consumer Reports testing.

BEAR-AvHistory

Back a few cars when I was still dyno testing them 91 to 94 was worth about 17/20RWP on the 335is pure stock. Best stock dyno was 321RWP. Depends on how broad the coding is that manages boost & timing. Some cars will get more of a kick at top usable octane then others.

What is interesting is BMW rated the 2 basic N54's & N55 at 300HP/300FTLBS even though the actually did not match each other in reality.