alpha0

I see inventory for 2017 accords less than even TLXs in the area, so i feel 2018 accords should be available in dealer lots soon after launch on July 14.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Just looked on Youtube and the 3G TL 6MT can do 62mph in 2nd gear at redline. So it's border line ahaha.

The idea of 5-60mph isn't so much about who would use 5 mph roll. Rather, it's just a way to take away all advantage(s) from using various launch techniques such as brake torquing, dumping the clutch at 5000rpm, and/or launch control.

There's a difference between 0-60mph and 5-60mph for almost every car. It's just that for turbocharged cars, the gap tends to be a little bit bigger in most cases (other than the S2000 may be..lol..as it has no low end or mid range torque at all).

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

I was going to bring this up earlier; per my math, a 3G TL 6MT will be turning 6,497 RPMs at 60 mph; well below redline.

F23A4

Noting that, I've been seeing a larger percentage of Touring V6 sedan models on lots than in years past, at dealers near me. If one were in the market for a new sedan, good deals could probably be secured on these. (Thinking about one for the wifey to use as a daily driver.)

BEAR-AvHistory

Fooled a bit with the 5 mph roll about 550RPM. Normal drive away 0 mph start 1000 RPM. Torque is already building.up on the drive-a-way. will take a look at the numbers today. Car has BHP & ft lbs gauges. Not greatly accurate like a dyno but for general use informative. Was watching them in normal to the grocery store & back traffic yesterday.

Very little action on the BHP gauge while the ft lbs gauge constantly loaded & unloaded in normal driving. Showed how much a car depends on torque in light traffic & why turbos work so well in that environment. With a non turbo car would have been much further into the throttle to generate the same torque level.

Saintor

Disagree. This is because you have already a proper displacement engine to start with. If you had a 2.0T 320HP, you would be more dependent on the turbo and you can bet that you would NOT feel the same immediacy.

Another example here:
http://www.caranddriver.com/volkswagen/golf-r

2016 Volkswagen Golf R
Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.3 sec
C/D observed fuel economy: 21 mpg

svtmike

I drive an Audi 2.0T every day, not just in my mind when reading magazines. It has gobs more usable low end torque for normal traffic driving than either of my V6 Acuras.

Revs are consistently lower (rarely need to get above 2k), downshifts are less frequent, and the engine is far more responsive. It is also hugely more fuel efficient.

All else being equal I would take my Audi 2.0T all day any day over the Acura V6 in any of my cars.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Interesting; until recently my wife had a 2012 GTI, and I much prefer the V6 in my Acura than the 2.0T in her GTI.

svtmike

I have the latest and greatest A4, and the engine is stronger than previous versions.

I had a Golf diesel before this that was also very torquey but of course didn't keep pouring it on like this engine does. But that engine was the gateway drug to this one for me.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

To be sure your A4 has an engine with an extra 40 to 50 HP over the one in our GTI, but your A4 is also saddled with nearly 700 pounds of extra weight which offsets that power. I suspect in a dead run it would be very close between the two cars.

svtmike

Possibly. AWD and gearing might work in my favor.

I was honestly astonished at how goid the new turbo 4's are. I had sworn off forced induction in the early 90s, but things change.

We really are in a golden age of cars. So many really good ones to choose from.

Saintor

Believing is everything.

svtmike

Actual driving is certainly better than magazine racing using misinterpreted 5-60 measurements.

Saintor

There is no misinterpreting.

svtmike

Of course there is. Just like someone can misinterpret engine sound to be more than half of the driving experience.

Now if you will excuse me I'd prefer to have an intelligent conversation and that requires someone other than you to engage.

Saintor

What part is misinterpreted? And what other measure is better?

I knew that there was a reason to "Excels at nothing".

RDX10

The engine in VW's and Audi's is not technically the same one. The one in VW's is the E888 and the one in Audi's is some derivative of that (It's been a while since I stepped out of the VAG game). I can't remember exactly what were the differences other than transverse and longitudinal of course.

TacoBello

Fuck, who gives a shit what he thinks. You can't convince him otherwise, even if he was sitting in the cars himself. You can waste your time responding to his "know it all" fuccboi-ism, or you can simply block him and let him talk to himself, while the grown ups focus on intellectual discussion, without the misbehaved child acting out, seeking attention.

Just wait until he moves on from his TLX in a few years, to something else. By that point, in his mind, the TLX will be the shittiest car on the planet and he will own the then current greatest automobile ever manufactured- whatever it may be. Probably an Audi (IF he can afford one, that is)

He chooses to ignore dyno evidence, coming up with some nonsensical BS to explain why they're wrong, and all he has is a 5-60 figure printed by one magazine.

Saintor

Nonetheless that stupid reply, the facts talk by themselves.

If turbo in small displacement engines was doing half of what fanboys pretend, they would be faster on the 5-60 where the torque counts, NOT the contrary..

pyrodan007

Speaking of 0-60 vs 5-60, for sure as shit the TLX is not any better. I have living proof EVERYDAY that when I accelerate from a stop it feels OK. But if the car is even remotely moving, it feels like I have to walk out and kick the damn thing to get it to accelerate. It's not just about the turbo, it's about the whole package and Audi NAILED it.

Saintor

Audizine is waiting for you.
http://audizine.com/

pyrodan007

And yet again, running away from the conversation when proven wrong... I can go to any other forum and have a great discussion. I love all cars, not just Acuras.

Saintor

Where *exactly*? I don't that it is the case at all.... and you should be happy with your current powertrain that puts most (not all) of the 2.0T to shame.

BEAR-AvHistory

Real life. Had a 330 4 cylinder turbo as a lender between dropping the 435 off & picking up the 440. I can state that the 330 can eat a TLX with custom wheels & very dark tint's lunch out of a light.

Maybe the tinted TLX driver, who rides bumpers afterwards, is a member here.

Point being I was very surprised how strong the 330 was. Not saying strong for a 4 cylinder just plain strong, certainly stronger than my 2004 330ci ZHP N/A 6 cylinder was. The 4T's have come a long way in the past 5 or so years

BEAR-AvHistory

Name any car regardless of engine that is faster 5-60 than 0-60.
Lets start with a mix of N/A & Turbo

Ferrari La Ferrari
Zero to 60 mph: 2.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 3.0 sec

Porsche Boxer
Zero to 60 mph: 4.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.2 sec

StingRay Grand Sport
Zero to 60 mph: 3.9 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.5 sec

BMW 440 stock 320hp
Zero to 60 mph: 4.4 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.0 sec

Porsche 911 Carrera 4S
Zero to 60 mph: 4.0 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 4.7 sec

A car starting from zero is running more revolutions per minute than a car running at 5mph. More revs = more power. More power = quicker movement.

horseshoez

iTrader: (2)

Yup, I'm very well aware of the differences, both cars sport versions of the EA888 engine, the Audi has the trick Valve Lift head, hence the difference in power. That said, in a dead run, I suspect the two cars to be within a tenth or two of each other, and I'm not bold enough to pick which would win, and yes, I've driven both the GTI as well as several late model A4s.

svtmike

To indulge in just a little bit of magazine racing, stock vs. stock, I think the new A4 Quattro (not the Ultra) would easily handle a '12 GTI with equally competent drivers in a 1/4 mile drag race (1 second and 4-5 mph of trap speed diff is what I've seen).

But drag racing is not really what either of these cars, or the TLX for that matter, is about.

kurtatx

It's like arguing with Alzheimers.

Agreed with svtmike, though. That A4 2.0T is an absolute beast.

neuronbob

Keep the personal insults out of your arguments, please.

Besides, even I agree that the 2.0T, at least in A4 duty, has enough low end grunt to handle daily travel. I've driven one, so I know. I say this, still liking power delivery in our ancient J35. It sure could use a couple more pound-feet down low. Until then, Sport + and revving it up are my tools of choice. Being a 27-year Honda driver, I know the drill all too well.

On in a quasi-related note....The RLX SH provided low end torque with electric motors. It is something I miss. It'll be nice to eventually see a TLX SH, especially if Honda can find a way to keep it lightweight. Next gen, maybe?

F23A4

Any idea if said TLX was a 2.4 or 3.5?

alpha0

It will be interesting what Honda does with 2.0T in Accord. Based on surveys they sent to potential V6 buyers, they were targeting 5.5 seconds 0-60.

I am interested in TLX Aspec but would wait to test drive 10AT+2.0T of accord before taking a decision.

neuronbob

You'd have to make that comparison to the PAWS A-Spec, but yeah, that'd be an interesting comparo.

BEAR-AvHistory

No he pulled up & started to rev his engine & creep forward when I was already at the light. Never saw the back of his car. No matter what it was he must have really thought it was quicker based on his bad looser reactions afterwards. Most of these things are generally a thumbs up one way or another

Butt feel is a very bad thing but (no pun intended) I have driven a TLX V6 AT before. Both the local BMW dealer's also sell Acura, that's were I got my TL. I would bet money, not a great deal, that the '17 330 is quicker. My '06 TL 6MT & '04 330Ci ZHP 6MT were a coin flip on acceleration & did not get the same feeling of closeness between the TLX V6 & '17 330.

Others results may differ, maybe I just hole shot him (never look at the other car on launch just the lights) but that's the difference between real life & magazine spec racing.

Saintor

*** You got it wrong ***. I never suggested that a car could be " faster 5-60 than 0-60." (!) Where did you get that????

What I said is that no matter the torque / for the same level of power, the delta between 0-60 and 5-60 is worse on those small displacement FI engines than the larger ones FI or not.

Saintor

Stop acting stupid. 2.0Ts like yours sound more like a toy than a "beast". But if you are ok with a 45K car that sounds like a fr*cking 15K Kia, be it.

BEAR-AvHistory

You actually said:

[QUOTE=Saintor;16050324]If turbo in small displacement engines was doing half of what fanboys pretend, they would be faster on the 5-60 where the torque counts, NOT the contrary..[quote]

OK if you say so.

BUT: What I said is because in all the cases the 0-60 car has more RPM therefore more power available at the launch than a 5-60 roller the 0-60 time will always be faster. That is the reason the airport roller runs all start at 40/50mph. Both the N/A & Turbo cars in first gear have their power up & can get a good start.

If you were correct 5 mph would be good enough, right?

svtmike

When all you've got as criticism is that the 4-cyl doesn't sound like a six, I guess you have to run with it. You probably whined at one time that sixes don't sound like 8's.

And to suggest that all 4 cyl engines from the most anemic to the most powerful sound the same is disingenuous at best, moronic at worst.

Saintor

The point in reference was the larger Civic NA 2.4 vs 1.5T... If I have to word it differently for YOU, there is no car with FI small displacement engines quicker on 5-60 than the larger NA it replaces ( despite the little BS torque theory).

No it is not. Aside from exceptions like the Boxster 987 / RS, they typically sound weak. Every 2.0T from Audi, BMW and Mercedes I drove left me wanting more. It is not for nothing that some had to introduce artificial sound.

svtmike

Like the TLX 6 cylinder A-spec?

TacoBello

Saintor, have you even driven a modern turbo engine car? If so, please, do note them here. We are all waiting.

I get a sneaking suspicion you never have and are speaking about things you have no clue about... aka... you're only half educated and therefore your argument, yet again, is nil.

Many of of us have driven not only the TLX, but other 2.0Toys also. And yet, you're the *only* one defending the V6