AutoWeek First Drive Review
08-01-2014, 12:06 PM
#1
AutoWeek First Drive Review
http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...lx-first-drive
In a straight line the TLX returned good – if not great – preliminary numbers to 60 mph. The quickest model we tried in impromptu launches on mostly flat country roads was the front wheel-drive V6, which used all of its 290 hp getting there in 6.1 seconds. The SH-AWD V6 got 6.5 seconds and the front wheel-drive 206-hp four-cylinder got to 60 mph in 7.2. While more thorough tests will surely lower those figures, in our runs we found all the cars were hampered by a pause at launch. This ate up as much as a second of time. Once the TLX decided to get going, it went, roaring ahead with only slight wheelspin with traction control off. - See more at: http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi....tI2akGJO.dpuf
In a straight line the TLX returned good – if not great – preliminary numbers to 60 mph. The quickest model we tried in impromptu launches on mostly flat country roads was the front wheel-drive V6, which used all of its 290 hp getting there in 6.1 seconds. The SH-AWD V6 got 6.5 seconds and the front wheel-drive 206-hp four-cylinder got to 60 mph in 7.2. While more thorough tests will surely lower those figures, in our runs we found all the cars were hampered by a pause at launch. This ate up as much as a second of time. Once the TLX decided to get going, it went, roaring ahead with only slight wheelspin with traction control off. - See more at: http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi....tI2akGJO.dpuf
In a straight line the TLX returned good – if not great – preliminary numbers to 60 mph. The quickest model we tried in impromptu launches on mostly flat country roads was the front wheel-drive V6, which used all of its 290 hp getting there in 6.1 seconds. The SH-AWD V6 got 6.5 seconds and the front wheel-drive 206-hp four-cylinder got to 60 mph in 7.2. While more thorough tests will surely lower those figures, in our runs we found all the cars were hampered by a pause at launch. This ate up as much as a second of time. Once the TLX decided to get going, it went, roaring ahead with only slight wheelspin with traction control off. - See more at: http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi....tI2akGJO.dpuf
In a straight line the TLX returned good – if not great – preliminary numbers to 60 mph. The quickest model we tried in impromptu launches on mostly flat country roads was the front wheel-drive V6, which used all of its 290 hp getting there in 6.1 seconds. The SH-AWD V6 got 6.5 seconds and the front wheel-drive 206-hp four-cylinder got to 60 mph in 7.2. While more thorough tests will surely lower those figures, in our runs we found all the cars were hampered by a pause at launch. This ate up as much as a second of time. Once the TLX decided to get going, it went, roaring ahead with only slight wheelspin with traction control off. - See more at: http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi....tI2akGJO.dpuf
Last edited by vai777; 08-01-2014 at 12:07 PM. Reason: duplicate text
The following 2 users liked this post by vai777:
hadokenuh (08-01-2014),
internalaudit (08-03-2014)
08-01-2014, 01:05 PM
#4
More of these launch problems from Acura's AT's, while others seem to be able to incorporate launch modes to enhance their performance. I will reserve final judgment until a few more tests come out and we can see 1/4 mile and trap figures to determine just how much of an issue this is or the extent of it but safe to say Acura does not have any of the better performers on it's radar with this car. Which is fine, still a nice car, great value, good on gas, safety and reliability are there and I'm sure it drives really well and probably feels like it performs good which is usually enough and works elsewhere.
For me, it's expected in the FWD models but the SH version is now simply the TL AWD, no gearing changes compared to the FWD, if just to even out the two V6 models like they did on the 4G and just about every other brand does and has always been done. And there doesn't appear to be any software changes like fuel maps and shift points or effective ones anyway, as the SH is now slower.
At face value, it seems they really sold out in the name of fuel economy and reliability, hopefully that will be good for them. Then this launching thing and if it ends up being a real damper to the vehicle's performance and they still decided to axe the 6MT, leaves me genuinely scratching my head. All kind of seems like a waste of other enhancements and changes to the model, really hope they have that Type S in the works.
Then again maybe reality is setting in and it is getting too hard even for Honda/Acura to push the envelope on FWD and NA setups. Perhaps that means they need to double down on most of the other areas instead and leave the sportier aspirations for RWD, FI and V8 and those who offer it.
For me, it's expected in the FWD models but the SH version is now simply the TL AWD, no gearing changes compared to the FWD, if just to even out the two V6 models like they did on the 4G and just about every other brand does and has always been done. And there doesn't appear to be any software changes like fuel maps and shift points or effective ones anyway, as the SH is now slower.
At face value, it seems they really sold out in the name of fuel economy and reliability, hopefully that will be good for them. Then this launching thing and if it ends up being a real damper to the vehicle's performance and they still decided to axe the 6MT, leaves me genuinely scratching my head. All kind of seems like a waste of other enhancements and changes to the model, really hope they have that Type S in the works.
Then again maybe reality is setting in and it is getting too hard even for Honda/Acura to push the envelope on FWD and NA setups. Perhaps that means they need to double down on most of the other areas instead and leave the sportier aspirations for RWD, FI and V8 and those who offer it.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 08-01-2014 at 01:07 PM.
08-01-2014, 01:18 PM
#5
Moderator
As has been noted in other places - it's not a glowing review and it's also a pretty poor review. Seems rushed to be the first one out of the gate maybe.
08-01-2014, 01:19 PM
#6
the 0-60 times on the V6 make no sense. An Accord V6 with a "inferior" 6 speed AT hits 5.5 seconds. How is the TLX, with more power and a 9 speed transmission, slower? that too by almost half a second.
08-01-2014, 01:36 PM
#7
Senior Moderator
Other than poor writing, the review appears pretty positive.
The fact is, most TLX buyers are not looking for driving excitement.
That pause in launch is very odd, though. Sounds like a last-second tweak that needs programmed out.
The fact is, most TLX buyers are not looking for driving excitement.
That pause in launch is very odd, though. Sounds like a last-second tweak that needs programmed out.
Trending Topics
08-01-2014, 01:38 PM
#8
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,634
Received 2,328 Likes
on
1,308 Posts
Did they use any of the sport settings? Of course, they don't mention a thing.
Seems like your 'typical' auto review these days which seem to be written by people who have no clue about the cars they drive.
Seems like your 'typical' auto review these days which seem to be written by people who have no clue about the cars they drive.
The following 3 users liked this post by Ken1997TL:
08-01-2014, 01:47 PM
#9
I own an IS350 Fsport -- it is lauded far & wide for its control. Car & Driver picked over BMW. BMW is derided for its lack of steering feel and soft suspension & Autoweek wrote this???? -- "The BMW or Audi competitors deliver a greater sense of driver control than the Acura and the Lexus IS." I'd take anything they wrote with a huge grain of salt. I posted a Road & Track review of the IS to prove my point that Autoweek is way off base on one critical point and probably others. Plus is there a car that gives more control that SH-AWD? I think not.
"The IS 350 F Sport isn't much like a Lexus.....the way it shrinks at speed until it's just you, a great engine, and that big tach isn't what we've come to expect. Or maybe this is just what happens when Lexus turns its focus from softness and luxury to competent speed. Either way, we're happy. And impressed. —JOHN KREWSON
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...65-3-roa1013-4
"The IS 350 F Sport isn't much like a Lexus.....the way it shrinks at speed until it's just you, a great engine, and that big tach isn't what we've come to expect. Or maybe this is just what happens when Lexus turns its focus from softness and luxury to competent speed. Either way, we're happy. And impressed. —JOHN KREWSON
http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...65-3-roa1013-4
Last edited by Glashub; 08-01-2014 at 01:53 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by Glashub:
internalaudit (08-03-2014),
Ken1997TL (08-01-2014)
08-01-2014, 01:56 PM
#10
Moderator
I think they didn't have much time in the car and didn't spend much time writing the review and as such it's not very helpful.
08-01-2014, 01:59 PM
#11
Ya, the V6 should at least be in the same range as the Accord in theory, it's likely the "pause" and whatever that ends up being about. Needs more testing but in the event that this is a safety measure or something, it "should" at least still drive like the faster car that was expected, if not race or launch as expected which is probably the more important thing for most.
Everyday driving, passing, pulling, merging and thing like 5-60 should not necessarily be impacted, it's just odd that other makes have measures to enhance the on paper performance compared to it's regular driving capabilities through superior launching and engineered launching capabilities, etc, while this is not the first time we have seen auto related hindrances from Acura when it comes to launching.
Even Autoweek sort of admitted in between the lines that the car seemed faster than what they were able to extract and that faster results would likely follow but we'll see. They didn't exactly specify which model or transmission it was. Maybe this was one of the related issues for the delay, something about the mating of the ZF transmissions was an earlier rumor. Maybe there were/are problems or work around issues with the ZF as it's not an in house unit (or as much of one) as the 6AT is.
As far as the "control" comments, it is suspected they softened things up this time around and changed to a hydraulic format but then gain I think it's more to the fact of the way the control feels with SH as opposed to a lack thereof but it's too premature to tell in any event. But to that point, it's a little less pure or consistent as the system does a lot of the manipulating and shifting and being so throttle dependent. This has been knocked on before but the end results still stand. Of course, I don't think they specified which model they were exactly commenting on, which would be expected on the front drives.
Everyday driving, passing, pulling, merging and thing like 5-60 should not necessarily be impacted, it's just odd that other makes have measures to enhance the on paper performance compared to it's regular driving capabilities through superior launching and engineered launching capabilities, etc, while this is not the first time we have seen auto related hindrances from Acura when it comes to launching.
Even Autoweek sort of admitted in between the lines that the car seemed faster than what they were able to extract and that faster results would likely follow but we'll see. They didn't exactly specify which model or transmission it was. Maybe this was one of the related issues for the delay, something about the mating of the ZF transmissions was an earlier rumor. Maybe there were/are problems or work around issues with the ZF as it's not an in house unit (or as much of one) as the 6AT is.
As far as the "control" comments, it is suspected they softened things up this time around and changed to a hydraulic format but then gain I think it's more to the fact of the way the control feels with SH as opposed to a lack thereof but it's too premature to tell in any event. But to that point, it's a little less pure or consistent as the system does a lot of the manipulating and shifting and being so throttle dependent. This has been knocked on before but the end results still stand. Of course, I don't think they specified which model they were exactly commenting on, which would be expected on the front drives.
Last edited by winstrolvtec; 08-01-2014 at 02:12 PM.
08-01-2014, 02:00 PM
#12
08-01-2014, 02:03 PM
#13
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (1)
Skeptical about this review.
08-01-2014, 02:25 PM
#14
Moderator
Also - did they even mention how the DCT performed??? It's a brand new transmission for Acura and no mention of how it behaves???
Also - I'm getting a error 404 from the autoweek site now - looks like they pulled the "review" down.
Also - I'm getting a error 404 from the autoweek site now - looks like they pulled the "review" down.
08-01-2014, 03:01 PM
#16
Senior Moderator
As I said, poorly written.
Sounds like an early draft got loose.
The comments about the driving nannies mimic those of the same nannies from other carmakers. Even if they don't like the nannies, most of them are options and if you want a purer driving experience, you can simply not check those boxes when ordering. Or buy a used S2000.
08-01-2014, 03:37 PM
#17
Autoweek review is no longer posted....
http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...lx-first-drive
takes you to a deadened.....maybe someone actually read the review
http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...lx-first-drive
takes you to a deadened.....maybe someone actually read the review
08-01-2014, 03:58 PM
#18
I'm sure they knew about the embargo. Click-bait.
08-01-2014, 04:07 PM
#19
AcurAdmirer
Uh ... don't I recall 6.1 sec to 60 as being what most testers got out of earlier FWD TL's?
And as for the 5.5 sec someone mentioned for the V6 Accord ...
I doubt any stock Accord ever pulled 5.5. My 420 hp V8 Infiniti M56 would only pull about 5.4 sec, and I never had any trouble blowing Accords into the weeds.
With no change in the engine output, and only a different tranny, I'm not expecting big performance gains out of the TLX.
.
.
And as for the 5.5 sec someone mentioned for the V6 Accord ...
I doubt any stock Accord ever pulled 5.5. My 420 hp V8 Infiniti M56 would only pull about 5.4 sec, and I never had any trouble blowing Accords into the weeds.With no change in the engine output, and only a different tranny, I'm not expecting big performance gains out of the TLX.
.
.
08-01-2014, 04:15 PM
#20
Well for awhile Autonews and Torque (whatever) were posting the same pre drive article and just updating the release date so that it came to the top of the news list. I think we may have to wait a couple of days to see a complete and thoughtful review and analysis.
The following users liked this post:
dysonlu (08-01-2014)
08-01-2014, 04:17 PM
#21
current TL is reluctant to start and/or stay in 1st which of course hurts acceleration. Seems like that hasn't changed here...still I would wait for the usual C/D and RT reviews to get the comparable times
08-01-2014, 04:20 PM
#22
Racer
Per Car& Driver 2013: our Accord V6 Touring example sprinted to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds and tripped the quarter-mile lights in 14.1 seconds at 101 mph.
Weighs 3559# and has 278HP
The TLX weighs more due to more standard content, 200#? 6.1-6.5 still seems slow. I agree but it is still a quick take review, not a full one. I expect the TLX V6 to be less than 6.0.
Weighs 3559# and has 278HP
The TLX weighs more due to more standard content, 200#? 6.1-6.5 still seems slow. I agree but it is still a quick take review, not a full one. I expect the TLX V6 to be less than 6.0.
08-01-2014, 05:22 PM
#23
Three Wheelin'
Good lord, IDS is one of the newest features to come to the TL/TLX line, it's supposed to be part of how to change the performance of the car, and yet they didn't say a thing about it when speaking to the numbers. Not to mention I believe VSA also emparts some delay to the throttle response. All I know is that my RLX has the delay they mention. When I turn on Sport Mode AND Turn OFF VSA (very important key point there), that delay is 100% gone.
Like NeuronBob said: poorly written review coupled by poor testing procedures and data gathering.
08-01-2014, 05:41 PM
#25
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
Uh ... don't I recall 6.1 sec to 60 as being what most testers got out of earlier FWD TL's?
And as for the 5.5 sec someone mentioned for the V6 Accord ... I doubt any stock Accord ever pulled 5.5. My 420 hp V8 Infiniti M56 would only pull about 5.4 sec, and I never had any trouble blowing Accords into the weeds.
With no change in the engine output, and only a different tranny, I'm not expecting big performance gains out of the TLX.
.
.
And as for the 5.5 sec someone mentioned for the V6 Accord ...
I doubt any stock Accord ever pulled 5.5. My 420 hp V8 Infiniti M56 would only pull about 5.4 sec, and I never had any trouble blowing Accords into the weeds.With no change in the engine output, and only a different tranny, I'm not expecting big performance gains out of the TLX.
.
.
According to Car and Driver, your M56 is capable of 0-60mph in 4.7s.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ad-test-review
Obviously, these figures are done by professional test drivers, on a completely flat road, controlled environment, with 1-foot rollout, and elevation adjusted. These drivers would also use different methods to get the best run, such as clutch dump, brake torquing, different modes (paddle shifters, sport mode, race mode, etc).
So it's not surprising that you can only get 5.4s in your car. If you were driving Accord using your method, you'd probably be getting 6.2s or something.
This is why I think, under test conditions, the TLX would probably pull noticeably better numbers than what AutoWeek got. We should wait and see.
The following 2 users liked this post by iforyou:
BEAR-AvHistory (08-02-2014),
Ken1997TL (08-01-2014)
08-01-2014, 05:45 PM
#26
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,634
Received 2,328 Likes
on
1,308 Posts
Car and Driver does the absolute 110% needed to squeeze every ounce of power out of a car. Meanwhile Consumer Reports probably pushes the gas pedal 60% and would fire an employee for disabling any sort of traction control.
08-01-2014, 05:47 PM
#27
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
lol yes. So there's no point comparing these TLX figures from AutoWeek to figures of other cars from car and driver. It wouldn't be an apple to apple comparison.
08-01-2014, 06:03 PM
#28
08-01-2014, 06:17 PM
#29
Uh ... don't I recall 6.1 sec to 60 as being what most testers got out of earlier FWD TL's?
And as for the 5.5 sec someone mentioned for the V6 Accord ... I doubt any stock Accord ever pulled 5.5. My 420 hp V8 Infiniti M56 would only pull about 5.4 sec, and I never had any trouble blowing Accords into the weeds.
With no change in the engine output, and only a different tranny, I'm not expecting big performance gains out of the TLX.
.
.
And as for the 5.5 sec someone mentioned for the V6 Accord ...
I doubt any stock Accord ever pulled 5.5. My 420 hp V8 Infiniti M56 would only pull about 5.4 sec, and I never had any trouble blowing Accords into the weeds.With no change in the engine output, and only a different tranny, I'm not expecting big performance gains out of the TLX.
.
.
08-01-2014, 07:22 PM
#30
AcurAdmirer
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ic-test-review . They got 5.5 sec for the coupe. I don't think the coupe is any different from the sedan.
.
.
08-01-2014, 08:14 PM
#31
Pro
Interestingly, the autoweek review is now pointing to a 404 page...
http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...lx-first-drive
http://autoweek.com/article/car-revi...lx-first-drive
08-01-2014, 09:35 PM
#32
▒JDM ¥ KING▒
The following 4 users liked this post by MuGen7Modulo:
08-02-2014, 07:43 AM
#33
hmm. Man I hope this isn't true. All of those 0-60 numbers are a half a second slower than I expected. If Acura doesn't ship something at least a little faster then their Honda counterparts that would be an epic failure.
08-02-2014, 07:52 AM
#34
Suzuka Master
When did Acura ever say they were after the "fastest car" category?
Sorry to rant but it gets old seeing all this worry over 0-60 times! Is 1/2 second going to make that much of a difference?
just wondering
The following 4 users liked this post by Stew4HD:
08-02-2014, 08:01 AM
#35
Moderator
Really? 0-60 times is the measure of a cars' success or failure? I see tons and tons of Corollas, Sentras, Civics, Elantras.. etc on the road... Are those epic failures?
When did Acura ever say they were after the "fastest car" category?
Sorry to rant but it gets old seeing all this worry over 0-60 times! Is 1/2 second going to make that much of a difference?
just wondering
When did Acura ever say they were after the "fastest car" category?
Sorry to rant but it gets old seeing all this worry over 0-60 times! Is 1/2 second going to make that much of a difference?
just wondering
08-02-2014, 08:08 AM
#36
Suzuka Master
Actually with all the various launch techniques the 0 to 60 times are a pretty pointless way to measure the performance of a daily driver type car. I'm more interested in how quick it can get from 30 to 65 as I do that every day while merging into busy traffic. Or how quick it can go from 50 to 75 for passing etc.
The following users liked this post:
Monte TLS,MAX (08-04-2014)
08-02-2014, 11:29 AM
#37
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC - USA
Age: 82
Posts: 7,674
Received 2,599 Likes
on
1,581 Posts
The 0-60 times only seem pointless when on an enthusiast site the car in question is slow. Otherwise its bragging rights.
Thing about 30-60/60-90 etc they typically run those in top gear & the N/A's get slaughtered by the turbos so its a tuff one to call. If they went for optimum gearing for those runs the numbers might be closer.
About the best number you will get from a performance oriented magazine is the 5-60 time. Pretty much real world that takes the pro driver out of the equation.
You know they are not. But, big, BUT when a car is trying to position itself as a performance sports sedan the numbers do have way more impact on buyers than on somebody buying a basic family transportation module.
Pure spec racing the TLX should be better than what AutoWeek reported.
Thing about 30-60/60-90 etc they typically run those in top gear & the N/A's get slaughtered by the turbos so its a tuff one to call. If they went for optimum gearing for those runs the numbers might be closer.
About the best number you will get from a performance oriented magazine is the 5-60 time. Pretty much real world that takes the pro driver out of the equation.
Really? 0-60 times is the measure of a cars' success or failure? I see tons and tons of Corollas, Sentras, Civics, Elantras.. etc on the road... Are those epic failures?
Pure spec racing the TLX should be better than what AutoWeek reported.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 08-02-2014 at 11:35 AM.
08-02-2014, 11:47 AM
#38
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Age: 45
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 190 Likes
on
119 Posts
Any reported 0-60 times have to be scrutinized for detail. How much gas was in the tank? What did the driver weigh? So many details affect the outcome. That's why you get such different times across the board. I'm a large man at 6'2" 280lbs - on paper another TL with a 140lb driver should beat me everytime, can't argue physics
The following users liked this post:
H_CAR (08-02-2014)
08-02-2014, 12:07 PM
#39
The 0-60 times only seem pointless when on an enthusiast site the car in question is slow. Otherwise its bragging rights.
Thing about 30-60/60-90 etc they typically run those in top gear & the N/A's get slaughtered by the turbos so its a tuff one to call. If they went for optimum gearing for those runs the numbers might be closer.
About the best number you will get from a performance oriented magazine is the 5-60 time. Pretty much real world that takes the pro driver out of the equation.
You know they are not. But, big, BUT when a car is trying to position itself as a performance sports sedan the numbers do have way more impact on buyers than on somebody buying a basic family transportation module.
Pure spec racing the TLX should be better than what AutoWeek reported.
Thing about 30-60/60-90 etc they typically run those in top gear & the N/A's get slaughtered by the turbos so its a tuff one to call. If they went for optimum gearing for those runs the numbers might be closer.
About the best number you will get from a performance oriented magazine is the 5-60 time. Pretty much real world that takes the pro driver out of the equation.
You know they are not. But, big, BUT when a car is trying to position itself as a performance sports sedan the numbers do have way more impact on buyers than on somebody buying a basic family transportation module.
Pure spec racing the TLX should be better than what AutoWeek reported.
Last edited by dysonlu; 08-02-2014 at 12:10 PM.
The following 2 users liked this post by dysonlu:
Spectra Phantom (08-02-2014),
Stew4HD (08-02-2014)
08-02-2014, 12:46 PM
#40
Suzuka Master
I'm on this so-called enthusiasts site since 2005 and I don't care about bragging rights. I'm sure I'm not the only one who cares little that the car is 0.5s slower on 0-60 than expected (if it turns out to be the case). The so-called enthusiasts sure like to speak for everyone, including other enthusiasts who don't share the same priorities.
If the car doesn't suit the needs of each type, then car is disappointing.
It seems to me that Acura is trying to hit that sweet spot that hits on all the points we like.
Oh well, there is not pleasing everyone and I'm sure that the vast majority of buyers will like it just as it is.
