Nari

Its hard to tell if the people wishing the TLX had a turbo 4 are wishing it only had a turbo 4 and no V6 but that's what it seems like. Frankly, I think Acura should offer one as a base engine - but not as the top engine choice on a car that might approach 50k.

The fact remains that it's nearly mechanically impossible for the finest four cylinder on earth, turbo or not, to provide the refinement characteristics of a good V6. Also, Honda is able to get 34 highway out of the Accord V6 and it's currently one of the quickest front wheel drive cars that's (ever been) offered for sale.


If you're paying 45k for a car wouldn't you prefer to have the option of a V6 as a top engine choice?

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

Do you think that MOST people who buy an E-class care what engine is in the car?


and since we're on the topic, if i'm spending close to $50k, I would want a V8 lux vehicle.
Not a v6

KeithL

Two points here, I think it is true many people do not know or care about what is under the hood. I also think that the old guard V8 thinking of the definition of a lucpxury car is gone for all but the top luxury models. Why? Because with fuel economy standards the auto makers have shown they can shrink the displacement of the engine and add forced induction to help boost the power, torque and efficiency of the engine. Sure Honda has done a great job of making very fuel efficient traditional aspirated engines, but look around, the Japanese are the last group to get on the smaller forced induction path. I look at my old Infiniti M37S vs. my old 4G 3.7 AWD vs. my A6 3.0. All were around the same HP, but my super charged 3.0 has way more torque at lower RPM and is silky smooth more so than the other 2. My A6 weighs about 150-200 lbs more than the other 2 and drives all 4 wheels all the time, yet is pulls better and gets about the same MPG as the other 2.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

no doubt.
Ford has been doing AMAZING things with its ecoboost engines.
there's a little 3 cylinder ecoboost that propels a lotus type vehicle/go kart around. it's fucking fast.

Not to mention the Ford Taurus SHO, with its ecoboost engine!


The Germans arent doing too bad either.


stupid Acura.

VR1

I don't care that much for FI engines, probably becuase I haven't driven a good one yet. (2.0T from Passat and N20 from 320i). To me, 4 cylinder N/A engines sound better then FI engines (Have you heard the N/A 1.4 in the Abarth!?!), and rev higher/more. For that reason I prefer N/A over FI 4 cyls. I haven't driven the new M5/M5, but I was pretty dissapointed when they got rid of the N/A S85 for the S63T. I fear Aston Martin may kill off it's glorious N/A V12's soon

hadokenuh

People like Turbo'ed 4 over V6 because it's lighter, supposedly more fuel efficient, and easier to tune for more horsepower.

Honda's V6 is very smooth and powerful, yet efficient. For me, I prefer V6 on a touring sedan. Plus, there are more thing that can go wrong with turbo'ed engines, so long term (like 7yrs+) reliability should be better with the V6.

Edward'TLS

Because Turbo engines are the future right now, bringing both high output horsepower and good fuel economy onto the same plate.

Even with Honda's diehard insistence on nothing but high-tech naturally-aspirated automobile engines, it has no choice now but to bow down to reality and starts implementing Turbo technology on it's upcoming lines of I4 and V6 engines, following the successful footsteps of Audi and BMW.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

they could have ran with the K23....
sad, acura, sad.

kurtatx

Most people don't go on car forums, whether they own an E-Class or an ILX.

Also, a turbo 4 acura is closer to the TSX than the TL. I would imagine it would be in the mid 30s.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I don't think most people wanted the turbo-4 to replace the V6. I think most people wanted a turbo-4 to be the base engine to allow Acura to better compete with Audi, BMW, and Mercedes which all offer turbo-4 motors as their smaller engines. Most of those motors offer fuel economy that is close to what the new direct injection K24 has been able to offer, but with substantially more power.

I personally think a turbo-4 making about 240-hp and about the same torque would have made an excellent base motor and should be accompanied by a new direct injection 6-cylinder making around 330 hp and 300 lb-ft of torque as an option.

Rocket_man

I agree, at least on this forum, most people were hoping for an I4 turbo and a V6. Honda is developing the I4 turbo, but we probably won't see it until the MMC. Then the question is what happens to all those who bought the NA I4? Do they slot the turbo in between the two and offer three engine choices? Probably not, then the value of the I4's first few years of this car will drop. Maybe another consideration to buy the V6.

Personally I'm one of those that doesn't need the V6. I've owned V6's and I6's in the past. Sure it is nice to have the extra power and 'smoothness', but my current I4 does what I need it to. If they offer certain features I really want only on the V6 then I may change my mind. But I hope they don't do that.

I think the I4 boosted up to 210-215hp combined with the 8DCT will do surprisingly well and will probably be the top selling engine. As long as they don't penalize the car feature wise. If people want the SH-AWD they step up to the V6 and life is good for them too.

KeithL

Agreed. While I love the way FI is done on my A6, I doubt I will have it outside warranty period so it does not bother me. If I were buying a car that I planned on owning outside warranty then traditional V6 would be the way I would go. The only folks behind the Japanese on FI are the Koreans. While Hyundai has a Turbo their V6 is pitiful compared to Honda's V6.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I am personally hoping for closer to 220-hp at least. Given that the Accord Sport with 6MT put down power numbers and 0-60 times on par with or better than the current K24 in the TSX, I would expect the TLX numbers to be significantly better since the new direct injection K24 is barely stressed at all in the Accord application.

jbawden

I think FI makes sense because of weight and packaging. In my experience the fuel economy argument doesn't really do much for me (because it's similar to NA engines making similar power), but the reduced weight on the front and thus the better overall weight distribution is the real benefit to the dynamics of the car. Plus, for those with the mod bug HUGE power is a programmer away should you want to do that. While not 4.2 Audi v8 @ 8,000 rpm type music, turbo noises are pretty good. By the way, a V8 luxury car at TL/TLX prices is a rarity and you have to fudge the term luxury to get it...think Chevy SS.

Acura_Dude

Either way I expect the TLX to be efficient in terms of MPG. I remember reading in a press release on the protoype (on this forum) that Honda's aiming to have best in class fuel efficiency. I'm pretty sure either motor a buyer end up choosing will be reliable, it's the 8spd DCT that I have my suspicions on since Honda will make it in house. Other than that, I have no issues with what they're doing (works for myself). I've driven plenty of 4-bangers, v6's, v8's, even FI motor(s) and for everyday driving a turbo'd 4 cylinder will work for 90% of mainstream buyers. I do like the smoothness of a V6 or V8, but if I were to drive a 4-banger (first to cars were, so I have no issues with owning another) having a turbo would be great for low-end power.

EDIT: The Germans have 4 cylinders in their entry level cars, and they're selling pretty well, so I see can where Acura is going with this.

Colin

IMO, turbos used for improved fuel economy normally use a downsized engine and boost it with FI. In this scenario, you sort of choose between economy and power vs a similarly powered NA motor. There should be some efficiency gains but not as much as promised on the EPA cycle. To me, a 200 hp 1.5 Turbo vs. a 200 2.4 NA is a virtual draw but the 2.4 may have an easier time meeting its EPA estimates consistently.

Nedmundo

Turbo motors can be more efficient on the highway than NA, because with all the torque they can cruise at much lower rpm, and you still have enough punch to accelerate without downshifting. Comparing my TSX to my previous car, a 2001 Saab 9-5 Aero with 5MT, shows this perfectly. The Saab had 230 hp and 258 lb.-ft., and weighed 3,600 pounds, and yet it delivered about two more highway mpg because at 80 mph it was at about 3,000 rpm, at which my TSX is around 70 mph. In all other scenarios, my TSX is more efficient, so overall I get about one mpg more than I did in the Saab.

I think the 8DCT will have a similar effect, because the top gear will be much taller than the TSX MT's sixth gear. Top gear acceleration will be provided by quick downshifts instead of monstrous torque, as with the turbo motors. If the DCT is combined with a healthy torque increase, like around 200 lb.-ft., I think it will perform well and deliver excellent highway mpg.

Colin

I can see that for sure. I was just thinking that the smaller 1.5 Turbo would need to spool up for any meaningful power and this should have a negative impact on overall economy. I won't deny that there are efficiencies to be gained by capturing otherwise wasted exhaust gas energy, just that they may not be as exaggerated in real world driving as the EPA numbers suggest. My concern is that this could lead to customer dissatisfaction if we significantly underperform in this area. This is why I'd prefer to see a NA 4 cylinder as long as they can keep the car in the 3300-3400 pound range.

Nedmundo

You're right about the questionable efficiency of a small turbo motor that needs to work hard. Witness Ford's 1.6L Ecoboost in the Escape, which is barely more efficient than the much more powerful 2.0L. I would assume any Acura would get the 2.0L VTEC Turbo.

Colin

I don't assume that. However, if they MMC the ILX with the 1.5 then a 2.0 for the TLX makes sense. I believe the 1.5 is slated for ~200 hp and that should be sufficient for a 'base' engine (especially with a fat torque curve and 8DCT).

However, if they could do the 2.0 at a 220-240 hp state of tune, I could get behind that too. I just think that 4 cylinder buyers are more interested in FE than outright power and they should target that market better.

MtnMan

Clearly the government FE standards are driving manufacturer decisions (who would have ever thought the M3 would ditch the V8). Some point to better balance, but that is a side effect - not the deciding factor.

For my next car I prefer a turbo. I rented a manual BMW 118i in Spain last summer and had an absolute BLAST in the mountain twisties. But as others noted, a turbo car wouldn't be something I'd feel comfortable relying on outside of warranty. If I was going to keep it for 10 years it would be NA.

The only 4 I would consider is one with boost. Ford has slotted the S550 Mustang's Eco4 BETWEEN the V6 and V8 models with slightly more power than the 6 (exceeding 300/300). With flat torque curves starting low, turbo definitely has my interest. If only they would put AWD in the Stang.

a35tl

While turbo 4s may be the wave of the future, I don't find myself tempted by them. I love the creamy smooth, potent V6 engine that Acura offers. Was driving my '12 TL home from work today, a 30 mile jaunt, and had 2 instances where I needed some instant power. The TL handled both with such ease and poise. No fuss was made. The car just dropped 2 or 3 gears and I found myself rapidly accelerating. Not saying that turbo 4s can't be swift but they can't match the composure that a smooth, powerful V6 has.

Rocketsfan

If Acura brings out a turbo 4 TLX in the future, their lineup in this class will be along the lines of what Cadillac offers in the ATS. If that's the case, then we're talking a range of $30k'ish to $50k'ish (unless you count the monstrous incentives GM tends to offer every so often).

KeithL

While I agree I tend to believe V6s are about maxed out with MPGs where they are and with higher and higher CAFE standards V6s will occupy the spot of the old V8s.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I think we are already starting to see this. Audi, for one, no longer offers a V8 in the A6 where a 4.2L V8 used to exist. Instead, the new 3.0L supercharged V6 has taken over than slot and offers similar power as what the V8 produced.

Forced induction motors will continue to allow the downsizing of engines in modern cars while keeping the power characteristics that people want. My concern is that, while the EPA ratings of these smaller forced induction engines are generally higher, oftentimes real-world fuel economy seems to struggle to live up to EPA ratings. In NA cars, it seems that reaching or beating the EPA ratings was actually pretty easy to do.

Nedmundo

Yeah, I agree the 1.5T would be appropriate for the ILX, but so would the 2.0T. I don't see anything but the 2.0T in the TLX though, but who knows? I wouldn't have guessed BMW would drop a 180hp motor in the 3 Series either.

KeithL

True and I will say my 3.0 SC A6 is more thirsty in stop and go than my larger V6s were.

Edward'TLS

The whole point of forced induction engines is to allow auto manufacturers to crank out V6/V8-like horsepower, while at the same time still satisfy the increasingly stringent EPA CAFE requirements.

EPA requirements are the top-most priority for auto makers to avoid hefty fines, and real-world fuel economy always takes the back seat.

However, one major benefit of forced induction engines is that drivers can control the balance on hp vs fuel-economy, depending on how heavy their right foots are.

Light on the gas, and you will get excellent fuel economy but a slow car; whereas heavy on the gas, and you will get endless amount of torque and hp but poor fuel economy.

This is something that naturally-aspirated-engine vehicles can't offer.

jbawden

Totally agree, which is why I suggested turbos in the real world aren't a significant boost to MPG for most people. Stuff a small turbo 4 in the TLX and people are going to be into the boost map all the time, defeating the economy premise in the real world, though they (Acura) gamed the EPA loop and pasted some impressive HP & MPG numbers on the window and isn't that what matters when trying to move metal on the lots? With that said I'm a fan of turbo's, had a Mazdaspeed3 for a while, great car.

oldsnwbrdr

I've driven the 328i, and in that car the engine is a screamer.

I rented a 528i a few weeks ago and the engine is very smooth and strong. You would NEVER believe it is a 4 cylinder.

It can be done.

kurtatx

I will admit I, blindly, was one of the 4 cylinder doubters when the Mustang 4 cylinder turbo was announced, but if the power numbers are equivalent, I guess I can't complain.

geekybiker

If the base engine was an I-4 turbo I would have a lot less concerns about it. Not only would it likely have enough power with a broad torque curve to be pleasant to drive under most circumstances, it would be easy to pull another 30-40hp out of if you are into performance.

hadokenuh

I agree. I've driven both 328i and 528i. I could only tell it was a 4cyl at high RPM whereas the BMW I6 was smooth all the way to red line.

Nedmundo

Yep, I've driven a couple of 328i models with the turbo four, and it's an impressive engine. I'd like to hear it more, but BMW had to minimize four cylinder NVH for the luxury market. I've also driven a couple for Focus ST's and IMO that engine is similar to the BMW. Both deliver power in such a linear fashion that they feel very different from "old school" turbos like my old Saab and the Mazdaspeed 3.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Just do yourselves a favor and avoid driving the GM 2.0T that is in the ATS. That thing is nowhere near as smooth as the BMW.

kurtatx

BMW Inline 6

internalaudit

Which is more reliable in the long run, Honda's 2nd gen VCM on its V6 models or an I4 turbo, which the previous RDX had?

BEAR-AvHistory

I4T is/will be everybody's base engine. Watch for 3T's in smaller cars.

Tonyware

I am guessing here... but maybe the new HR35TT engine (twin turbo) based on the J35 is going in the racing TLX. Wish Acura/Honda offered it as a crate engine with the EFI (comes from McLaren) for everyone to buy and install. That would be serious fun

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/02/22/h...ine/#continued

(twin turbo J35 could be around 500-550hp on the crank??)

Colin

I've been wondering about this recently. Do 3 cylinder engines use some kind of balance shaft to make it smoother? Wouldn't it be a little 'lumpy' without some form of mechanical dampening? What about exhaust sounds? They must sound 'odd' (no pun intended)