Accord 18 pics released...TLX killer?
#281
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 15.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.8 sec @ 110 mph
Top speed (gear limited): 158 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 152 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.94 g
#283
I had a 2014. That car got uglier every day I owned it. There was no saving grace to that design. It was odd from every angle. No aesthetic flow at all.
#284
To people who rave about the new Accord - have you test driven one and compared with the V6 '18 TLX ASPEC? Are you sure the Accord is a better car? A TLX sells 5-15K more. What is Honda thinking? Looking at the reaction of the "acura enthusiasts" on this site, I am totally lost as to what Honda is doing by even have an Acura!
as for me personally, I totally live my TLX! Then again I've never driven an accord, new or old. So perhaps I don't know what I am talking about.
as for me personally, I totally live my TLX! Then again I've never driven an accord, new or old. So perhaps I don't know what I am talking about.
The following users liked this post:
SebringSilver (10-06-2017)
#285
Drifting
The '18 Accord platform will likely serve as the underpinnings for the FMC TLX, whenever that happens, if past is prelude.
So, consider the already-solid Accord platform with more features, better materials, I'm guessing more engine options (will Acura retain the V6?), SH-AWD availability, etc.
Should be a very nice vehicle.
So, consider the already-solid Accord platform with more features, better materials, I'm guessing more engine options (will Acura retain the V6?), SH-AWD availability, etc.
Should be a very nice vehicle.
The following users liked this post:
boe_d (10-07-2017)
#286
Burning Brakes
I'm sure it'll be a fantastic vehicle (provided the 9ZF is gone), the only problem is that the due date is way too far into the future. Who knows what other innovations will come, making it old again. And it won't be the Germans doing the innovations, Honda has no problem destroying it's own luxury brand with cool tech.
The following users liked this post:
boe_d (10-07-2017)
#287
Moderator
There's a pretty positive buzz around the new Accord (despite it's polarizing design) because it's a new generation and it's a Honda and it has new drivetrain options etc etc. The glowing reviews from the car review guys are fairly typical (I seem to recall the TLX getting the same great reviews - Acura is back!! etc etc ) for first drive reviews. Those guys know where their bread is buttered and if you want to continue to get invites from Honda you generally want to write a glowing review. Not saying there's anything dishonest going on - but rather it's the nature of the business.
Truth be told car enthusiasts tend to deal in hyperbole so it's best to take all this stuff with a grain of salt. I plan on driving one for fun but in no way am I considering buying one.
Truth be told car enthusiasts tend to deal in hyperbole so it's best to take all this stuff with a grain of salt. I plan on driving one for fun but in no way am I considering buying one.
#288
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Should have posted below the MB-CLA I4 2T has the same 355 factory HP rating as my I6 3T. So putting muscle into a 4 cylinder car is very doable. Have not seen a dyno's RWHP number for the MB but its very quick & expect its underrated at 355..
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 15.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.8 sec @ 110 mph
Top speed (gear limited): 158 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 152 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.94 g
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.6 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 15.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.7 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.8 sec @ 110 mph
Top speed (gear limited): 158 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 152 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.94 g
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ic-test-review
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 16.5 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 25.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 3.3 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.3 sec @ 113 mph
Top speed (governor limited, mfr's claim): 167 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 150 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.00 g
Granted, one of my friends had the earlier version and he blew his stock engine up lol. Luckily it's still under warranty. Both of these run over 26psi...with some noticeably turbo lag though haha. That's a lot of boost for an OEM engine!
#289
And there's a new version of the CLA45 with 375hp:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ic-test-review
Granted, one of my friends had the earlier version and he blew his stock engine up lol. Luckily it's still under warranty. Both of these run over 26psi...with some noticeably turbo lag though haha. That's a lot of boost for an OEM engine!
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ic-test-review
Granted, one of my friends had the earlier version and he blew his stock engine up lol. Luckily it's still under warranty. Both of these run over 26psi...with some noticeably turbo lag though haha. That's a lot of boost for an OEM engine!
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-05-2017)
#290
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Street legal track car, not bad for $70K.
Typical 2T is running 20+PSI. Using some 328/330 parts guys were pulling mid 20PSI with the I6. I ran 18.5PSI with the stock 335 parts & they limited the boost to 20PSI.
There are a lot of ways to blow an engine & the money shift is most common, good reason to run AT or DCT.
Typical 2T is running 20+PSI. Using some 328/330 parts guys were pulling mid 20PSI with the I6. I ran 18.5PSI with the stock 335 parts & they limited the boost to 20PSI.
There are a lot of ways to blow an engine & the money shift is most common, good reason to run AT or DCT.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-05-2017 at 02:12 PM.
The following users liked this post:
2012wagon (10-05-2017)
#291
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Interesting point. C&D had a ACCORD 2T VS Civic R 2T piece. Seems like the only difference between the engines is the ACCORD has a smaller turbo. Good hot rodding possibility for any one who would like the ACCORD for size & comfort but wants more zip.
The following users liked this post:
teh CL (10-09-2017)
#292
Good article
Turbos aren’t the whole story. The Type R has higher-flow fuel injectors that Kunikane said are designed primarily for a “heavy spray,” whereas the Accord injectors have a wider range of flow rates. With less oxygen in the cylinders due to the lower boost pressure, the Accord’s engine sips less fuel, hence the Accord’s estimated highway rating of 30-plus mpg (with the manual transmission) versus the Type R’s 28 mpg. Aggressive software tuning and required high-octane fuel are the Type R’s finishing touches. Honda also added a balance shaft to the Accord’s engine to quell second-order vibrations. Presumably the Type R driver likes the extra vibrations.
https://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale...-civic-type-r/
wonder how the turbo accord will do with premium gas and a flash
Turbos aren’t the whole story. The Type R has higher-flow fuel injectors that Kunikane said are designed primarily for a “heavy spray,” whereas the Accord injectors have a wider range of flow rates. With less oxygen in the cylinders due to the lower boost pressure, the Accord’s engine sips less fuel, hence the Accord’s estimated highway rating of 30-plus mpg (with the manual transmission) versus the Type R’s 28 mpg. Aggressive software tuning and required high-octane fuel are the Type R’s finishing touches. Honda also added a balance shaft to the Accord’s engine to quell second-order vibrations. Presumably the Type R driver likes the extra vibrations.
https://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale...-civic-type-r/
wonder how the turbo accord will do with premium gas and a flash
The following users liked this post:
teh CL (10-09-2017)
#293
Senior Moderator
I'm actually feeling compelled towards getting the CLA45.
#295
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Street legal track car, not bad for $70K.
Typical 2T is running 20+PSI. Using some 328/330 parts guys were pulling mid 20PSI with the I6. I ran 18.5PSI with the stock 335 parts & they limited the boost to 20PSI.
There are a lot of ways to blow an engine & the money shift is most common, good reason to run AT or DCT.
Typical 2T is running 20+PSI. Using some 328/330 parts guys were pulling mid 20PSI with the I6. I ran 18.5PSI with the stock 335 parts & they limited the boost to 20PSI.
There are a lot of ways to blow an engine & the money shift is most common, good reason to run AT or DCT.
Good article
Turbos aren’t the whole story. The Type R has higher-flow fuel injectors that Kunikane said are designed primarily for a “heavy spray,” whereas the Accord injectors have a wider range of flow rates. With less oxygen in the cylinders due to the lower boost pressure, the Accord’s engine sips less fuel, hence the Accord’s estimated highway rating of 30-plus mpg (with the manual transmission) versus the Type R’s 28 mpg. Aggressive software tuning and required high-octane fuel are the Type R’s finishing touches. Honda also added a balance shaft to the Accord’s engine to quell second-order vibrations. Presumably the Type R driver likes the extra vibrations.
https://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale...-civic-type-r/
wonder how the turbo accord will do with premium gas and a flash
Turbos aren’t the whole story. The Type R has higher-flow fuel injectors that Kunikane said are designed primarily for a “heavy spray,” whereas the Accord injectors have a wider range of flow rates. With less oxygen in the cylinders due to the lower boost pressure, the Accord’s engine sips less fuel, hence the Accord’s estimated highway rating of 30-plus mpg (with the manual transmission) versus the Type R’s 28 mpg. Aggressive software tuning and required high-octane fuel are the Type R’s finishing touches. Honda also added a balance shaft to the Accord’s engine to quell second-order vibrations. Presumably the Type R driver likes the extra vibrations.
https://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale...-civic-type-r/
wonder how the turbo accord will do with premium gas and a flash
I wonder how limited the Accord's injectors are. May be those will need to be replaced too but still wont be too $$. I think the Accord 2.0T is probably making 220-230whp. 300whp shouldn't be too difficult.
#296
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Good article
Turbos aren’t the whole story. The Type R has higher-flow fuel injectors that Kunikane said are designed primarily for a “heavy spray,” whereas the Accord injectors have a wider range of flow rates. With less oxygen in the cylinders due to the lower boost pressure, the Accord’s engine sips less fuel, hence the Accord’s estimated highway rating of 30-plus mpg (with the manual transmission) versus the Type R’s 28 mpg. Aggressive software tuning and required high-octane fuel are the Type R’s finishing touches. Honda also added a balance shaft to the Accord’s engine to quell second-order vibrations. Presumably the Type R driver likes the extra vibrations.
https://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale...-civic-type-r/
wonder how the turbo accord will do with premium gas and a flash
Turbos aren’t the whole story. The Type R has higher-flow fuel injectors that Kunikane said are designed primarily for a “heavy spray,” whereas the Accord injectors have a wider range of flow rates. With less oxygen in the cylinders due to the lower boost pressure, the Accord’s engine sips less fuel, hence the Accord’s estimated highway rating of 30-plus mpg (with the manual transmission) versus the Type R’s 28 mpg. Aggressive software tuning and required high-octane fuel are the Type R’s finishing touches. Honda also added a balance shaft to the Accord’s engine to quell second-order vibrations. Presumably the Type R driver likes the extra vibrations.
https://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale...-civic-type-r/
wonder how the turbo accord will do with premium gas and a flash
#297
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
#298
All in all 2.0T 6MT is God’s gift to midsize sedans
cant wait for them
cant wait for them
The following users liked this post:
TacoBello (10-09-2017)
#299
Burning Brakes
#300
#301
Banned
There IS a major reason why Toyota keeps a V6 in the new Camry/ES
#302
Team Owner
The following users liked this post:
BEAR-AvHistory (10-09-2017)
#303
#304
Burning Brakes
I've yet to hear it in person. The only downfall I think is the CVT. I hate how those things run. I want to feel a change in gears. Not like my car sounds like it's having a transmission problem not shifting gears.
Lol. Burn
The following users liked this post:
2012wagon (10-09-2017)
#305
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
MT gave the 1.5T Accord the overall win over the 4 cylinder Camry in their comparison test. 0-60 & 1/4 mile as tie. Slid pad tie, Braking Camry by 13 feet. Fuel economy Accord, Price Accord by $5500 less as tested.
#306
WOW
the Civic is whipping the Camry in Sales
now will be double whammy
Accord will kill the Camry too
good thing Toyota has the Tacoma
#308
Team Owner
I'll take a badass LSD equipped 6MT, mated to a turbo 4 banger and an ugly but lighter, larger and better handling body, over a beauty queen with a slush box and shit dynamics any day of the week. I mean, I won't be happy about it. But at the same time, I will be happy about it. As always, modding will help tone the ugly.
#310
Team Owner
Not to worry. There are still great cars with great-looking designs. You might have to come to terms with not having a caliper logo on the trunk if you want to own one though.
Last edited by svtmike; 10-10-2017 at 04:57 AM.
#311
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
You can even build different forums TLX 2.4, TlX V6, TLX V6 SHAWD all with or without A-Spec sections to totally eliminate conflict. Expect it will be just be overwhelmed in hits.
BTW 14,740 hits, one of the highest counts, for the TLX killer indicates without a doubt many people are interested in the topic even if you don't approve of it being here..
#312
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (1)
For example- comparing the two: the 18 Accord vs the 18 TLX one can start discussing the DCT in the TLX vs the CVT and 6MT. Personally, I can't stand the tacky stick on iPad in the Accord or the rear but the rest of the car I really like.
#313
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (1)
I'll take a badass LSD equipped 6MT, mated to a turbo 4 banger and an ugly but lighter, larger and better handling body, over a beauty queen with a slush box and shit dynamics any day of the week. I mean, I won't be happy about it. But at the same time, I will be happy about it. As always, modding will help tone the ugly.
#314
I don't get it. Threads like this are beyond comparing specs, performance and values of competitions. It's qualified as "bashing" (just look at the dominant the and MANY posts on it). Seriously, again what's the point of having this discussion on the Acura enthusiasts forum? To feel good that you are to buy an Accord that out performs a TLX by spending less? anyways, end of my rant. Carry on.
#315
Burning Brakes
I don't get it. Threads like this are beyond comparing specs, performance and values of competitions. It's qualified as "bashing" (just look at the dominant the and MANY posts on it). Seriously, again what's the point of having this discussion on the Acura enthusiasts forum? To feel good that you are to buy an Accord that out performs a TLX by spending less? anyways, end of my rant. Carry on.
Last edited by pyrodan007; 10-10-2017 at 10:22 AM.
#316
6 Forward 1 Back
I'll take a badass LSD equipped 6MT, mated to a turbo 4 banger and an ugly but lighter, larger and better handling body, over a beauty queen with a slush box and shit dynamics any day of the week. I mean, I won't be happy about it. But at the same time, I will be happy about it. As always, modding will help tone the ugly.
This whole 2018 TLX vs 2018 Accord comparisons kill me because the TLX is 4 years old. That's a long time in the car industry. The Accord better have improvements seeing it's got that much of a head start on the TLX.
I can't say much of anything about the 2018 Accords since I haven't driven one. Reviews look great, styling is questionable and on paper specs look great. I drove a 2017 Accord before buying the TLX and may look great it just didn't drive as well as I'd like. Noisy, handling wasn't there and torque steer on the V6. It's not designed for that kind of performance so I can't really fault it. Are there areas that the TLX could improve? Definitely, but for what I was looking for it's been great and I didn't have to spend another $10k with other brands. I get all kinds of comments about how nice my ASpec is. It is more rare and I"m glad to not see 20+ of them daily like the Accord.
I'm just hopeful that the 2018 Accord tech/improvements will mean the next gen TLX will be even better. Then it's the 2020 TLX vs 2020 Accord threads. . .
#317
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
I don't get it. Threads like this are beyond comparing specs, performance and values of competitions. It's qualified as "bashing" (just look at the dominant the and MANY posts on it). Seriously, again what's the point of having this discussion on the Acura enthusiasts forum? To feel good that you are to buy an Accord that out performs a TLX by spending less? anyways, end of my rant. Carry on.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-10-2017 at 11:32 AM.
#319
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Actually I am hiding here behind my keyboard to avoid going into the garage to face my age. The COBRA has a very heavy cable pull clutch - 600 lb ft of torque transmission. Have to install some fabricated parts that will extend the length of the throw-out fork to give my leg a bit more leverage when moving off from a start. At speed its no problem as it currently is because its a centerforce pressure plate
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 10-10-2017 at 11:58 AM.
#320
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
Yeah, so would I, but you're not going to get that in the Accord. There is no LSD. I'm done with FWD cars with "high" horsepower even if there is a manual. It's just not fun to drive. But to each their own.
This whole 2018 TLX vs 2018 Accord comparisons kill me because the TLX is 4 years old. That's a long time in the car industry. The Accord better have improvements seeing it's got that much of a head start on the TLX.
I can't say much of anything about the 2018 Accords since I haven't driven one. Reviews look great, styling is questionable and on paper specs look great. I drove a 2017 Accord before buying the TLX and may look great it just didn't drive as well as I'd like. Noisy, handling wasn't there and torque steer on the V6. It's not designed for that kind of performance so I can't really fault it. Are there areas that the TLX could improve? Definitely, but for what I was looking for it's been great and I didn't have to spend another $10k with other brands. I get all kinds of comments about how nice my ASpec is. It is more rare and I"m glad to not see 20+ of them daily like the Accord.
I'm just hopeful that the 2018 Accord tech/improvements will mean the next gen TLX will be even better. Then it's the 2020 TLX vs 2020 Accord threads. . .
This whole 2018 TLX vs 2018 Accord comparisons kill me because the TLX is 4 years old. That's a long time in the car industry. The Accord better have improvements seeing it's got that much of a head start on the TLX.
I can't say much of anything about the 2018 Accords since I haven't driven one. Reviews look great, styling is questionable and on paper specs look great. I drove a 2017 Accord before buying the TLX and may look great it just didn't drive as well as I'd like. Noisy, handling wasn't there and torque steer on the V6. It's not designed for that kind of performance so I can't really fault it. Are there areas that the TLX could improve? Definitely, but for what I was looking for it's been great and I didn't have to spend another $10k with other brands. I get all kinds of comments about how nice my ASpec is. It is more rare and I"m glad to not see 20+ of them daily like the Accord.
I'm just hopeful that the 2018 Accord tech/improvements will mean the next gen TLX will be even better. Then it's the 2020 TLX vs 2020 Accord threads. . .
Why the Accord/TLX topic is valid is both cars are on sale right now & are crossshopped.