Then don't buy the A-spec. Or, add the body kit and the option wheels to the TLX Tech for a proper comparison.

 

Both are full optioned out Tech packages with as many pretty parts I can put on it to my liking.

It is a hell of a substantial upgrade and you get a shit tone more features. If SH-AWD and the 2.0T was part of this roughly 2K difference on the top trims then it would be CAKE. I am ok with SH-AWD and 2.0T being an option for the last 2 years of production as making it reach near 40K as a Type-S model... But as a heads up, the Auto dimming rear view mirror is no long standard is is not alacarte on the '16 ILX, even witht he highest of all trims..




I have to say.. it's a good price for all you get and the level of refinement and driving dynamics. If only it had came this way... or the MMC had came sooner...

 

Dimming mirror comes back with the premium trim which is how it also was on the 2015s

 

In terms of cars that compete with the base ILX, we can mention not just the Audi A3, which costs thousands more when comparably equipped, but cars like the VW Golf and Mazda3. Believe it or not, you can get a non-GTI Golf with a list price of c. $29k! And same with a loaded Mazda3. Needless to say, the ILX is faster and more luxurious than either of those. Check out this link for the Golf:

2015 VW Golf 1.8T Automatic Long-Term Test Intro ? Review ? Car and Driver

PRICE AS TESTED: $28,810 (base price: $27,815)

ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, iron block and aluminum head, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 110 cu in, 1798 cc
Power: 170 hp @ 4500 rpm
Torque: 199 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 103.8 in
Length: 167.5 in
Width: 70.8 in Height: 57.2 in
Passenger/cargo volume: 93.5/22.8 cu ft
Curb weight: 3122 lb

PERFORMANCE: NEW
Zero to 60 mph: 7.5 sec

 

2015 Mazda 3 2.5L Manual Hatch Tested ? Review ? Car and Driver

PRICE AS TESTED: $28,385 (base price: $25,140)

ENGINE TYPE: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 152 cu in, 2488 cc
Power: 184 hp @ 5700 rpm
Torque: 185 lb-ft @ 3250 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 106.3 in
Length: 175.6 in
Width: 70.7 in Height: 57.3 in
Curb weight: 3003 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.3 sec

 

What's weird and annoying to me is that C & D gives both of these cars raves, while at the same time giving the 2016 ILX a positive but more mixed review.

???

No question in my mind of which I'd rather own...

 

The production slow down bc of the port issue will seemingly affect the launch of the 2016 ILX....

http://www.autonews.com/article/2015...est-coast-port

 

You have a point. I think some reviewers consider cars within rigidly defined segments, so an overachieving "economy" car like the Mazda 3 seems "better" than an entry level near luxury car of a similar price. The Mazda 3 and Golf are arguably the best of their segment, while the ILX is ostensibly trying to play at a higher level and is judged accordingly. In some ways this makes sense, because otherwise you could see comparisons between the ILX and a Malibu, for example. It keeps their analysis focused on the cars most likely to be cross-shopped with the car under review.

But I think many buyers, and to be fair some reviewers too, take a more expansive view and don't shop within narrowly defined segments. For example, my requirements are generally four doors, MT, fun to drive, and small enough for our garage. This leads me to cross-shop sport compacts (WRX, etc.), small sport sedans (3 Series, etc.), and MT versions of decent handling mainstream cars (TSX, maybe Accord Sport).

 

Have you seen the 2016 mazda6 in person yet, I went and test drove one today and I can tell you the interior is far better than the ilx.

 

Yep, cool cars to choose from right there. Part of the reason I didn't get a TSX was because of parking space - at home, at work, and at school.

 

The only ILX model that makes sense to me is the premium....but still about 1k too much. Make the TLX is much more appeal

If the TLX looks like the ILX i would buy in a heart beat...just a little too conservative for my liking

On the side note Jeff at Temple of Vtec said the final drive is taller on the ILX therefore acceleration will not be much faster than TLX even with the weight saving. But brakes are much improved which is good because the brake on the TLX is worse than a camry from 60-0

 

??? What? Really?

 

Well when it comes to the price I just want to say I told ya so to all the people that said the new ILX would cost the same.

My 2.0tech is now 5grand cheaper than the top trim ILX.
The ILX that is now 3grand most expensive than my 2013tech has NO FOGS.

I was super excited to buy a car with fog lights stock as it was an upgrade for my integra. Now the 32,900 ILX doesnt even have Fogs. That is just stupid IMO.

Making me happier with my 1st gen. I love it. Sure it's not as fast but I didnt buy the car to be fast. If I wanted a fast car I could have easily picked up a BRZ for 5grand less. Any of us could.

 

A couple more things... only the 35,000 ILX has perforated leather seats. Oh I am sorry, my 13 tech has that and it cost 5grand less.

"Aspec package" doesnt even have a front lip. STUPID. I care more about the front lip than the sides or rear.

Ebony headliner... thats cool as fuck.

Red contrast stitching and cluster... no thank you. Id pick just about ANY color as an accent color before red. So played out.

Rear deck lid spoiler I would take off because wingless is sexy.

18in wheels... eh. Pretty gross. Id take the 17in 5 spokes before those.


I am falling more in love with my ILX.

 

I see why you like yours, but you must admit that the 16 is a major step forward in most areas, especially value. Sure, you don't get fog lights, but instead you've got LEDs which are much more expensive than adding fogs to xenons. Also, I do believe that the $30,820 after delivery ILX Premium does have perforated leather.

As far as being fast, sure the ILX isn't meant to be a complete sports car, but who wouldn't take 3 more gears and 50 more hp for better MPGs?

Also, you've got the new head unit (some would say it's annoying, but you don't have to pay for Nav anymore and instead you can get a $60 app, yet there is still that nice large display. I'd say a good compromise). As far as gauges, I really like the new screen they've put there, it's a huge step forward compared to the old one.

Hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion. If you think that your ILX is better, why not. That's why you bought it, and no matter what the pre-MMC ILX is a great car. Just putting my opinion out there.

 

I agree that its a little unfortunate they pushed the price upward with the 2016 model but it makes sense. I am not a fan of the A-Spec spoiler...I prefer the spoiler available as an accessory.

For me, I need to see what Acura Canada will do, as we all know they are quite often different than in the States. But if I was in the States, I'd get the Technology Plus and add the body kit, spoiler and accessory wheels from the pre MMC....

I can't wait to see and test drive one at the end of the month....I could see getting one of these or stick with my original idea of the .....

 

A potentially interesting comparison to make is between the 2016 ILX and the 2015 TLX. As we know, they have the same engine and transmission, but since the ILX is 400 lbs lighter it gets from 0-60 (according to Car and Driver) in 6.2 seconds rather than the 6.8 of the TLX.

They are obviously different sizes and classes of car, but the price difference isn't as much as seems at first glance, because the base TLX compares most closely in equipment to the Premium ILX. And the difference in msrp between those two is just $1500.

What do you get and what do you lose for that $1.5k?

With the ILX you get faster acceleration and also more nimble handling in a tidier package.

But, by contrast, the TLX gives you more passenger room, a larger trunk, and likely a little better safety.

The mpg numbers are close, but the ILX gets about 1 more according to the EPA (29 combined compared to 28 for the TLX).

The ILX gets leather compared to the TLX's leatherette, but then again the interior of the TLX is not just roomier but fancier, and includes things like rear air vents.

With the TLX you also get the Integrated Dynamic System to dial in Normal, Economy, Sport, and Sport +. The ILX just has a Sport mode as far as I know. So, 4 modes compared to 2.

And, it seems to be only a slight improvement, but the TLX has PAWS 4 wheel steering.

Going along with its larger size, the TLX also has larger tires and brakes than the ILX.

They are really two different cars for two different tastes and purposes, but I'm one of those in-betweeners who would consider both.

 

PS I like the wheels on the TLX better than those on the ILX. I like the ILX wheels, but the TLX ones are closer to really like.

 

^^^I agree that's an interesting comparison, and one issue will be how quiet and refined the ILX is relative to the TLX. The TLX is outstanding in this respect, and has a mature, composed feel. With this and its larger size, it's probably the choice for family road trip duty, but the ILX is probably better as an enthusiast's commuter/daily driver. The ILX would also work for a small family or one that packs reasonably, but my 15 year old daughter's fashion "needs" take us out of the latter category! Despite this, I'd probably choose the ILX, because the TLX is simply too big to fit comfortably in our garage.

Another issue for me is steering feel. It's a big priority, and the numb steering in my TSX is its most glaring weakness IMO. Based on my TLX test drive, it's no better, which is a bummer. If the ILX sees major improvement in this area, I'd be more likely to consider it. But then I run into the lack of MT. . . sigh. . .

 

Yeah, I'm torn on the manual thing too. Another car I'm considering is a new Accord EX 6MT—but they are very hard to find! There are only about 3 within 200 miles of me, and none at my local dealers. The Sport and base are much easier to find in the manual, but there aren't even a lot of those. Manuals seem to be going away. Several months after I bought my 2008 Accord EXL navi 5 mt they discontinued it. But an EX 6MT my less pricey option that let's me keep shifting....

 

A 2015 Accord EX 6MT lists for @25k flat, compared to 27.9 for the base ILX. The ILX with the DCT will be faster, since it's smaller and lighter, but not by much. Car and Driver tested the Sport 6MT model of the Accord to 60 at 6.6. The EX doesn't have the dual exhaust, and so slightly less power, but maybe 6.8 is possible. For some, this is a perhaps a less relevant measurement. But right after work I have an uphill ramp onto the FWY with a short merge distance. In other words, 0-60 is relevant to me, and sometimes my 2008 Accord feels like it could use a little more power and a little less weight. I think the 0-60 time on the 08 Accord with the manual is 8-8.5 seconds, and so either of these would be a significant bump up and plenty fast for me.

Otherwise these two aren't far off in features. Neither of them has XM. Accord EX has cloth, while the ILX base has leatherette. I might actually prefer the cloth, but 6 of one half dozen of the other to me, since there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Both have a moonroof, push button start/smart entry, etc. The ILX will be fancier in some ways, and has the prestige of being an Acura, etc. but then again the Accord has more room and is probably slightly safer since it's larger.

I realize most wouldn't cross shop these two, but for me they are both in the running.

 

I understand completely, because I occasionally face crazy on ramps and merges in downtown Philly, which features a couple of downhill blind on ramps into the left lane of I-76. These are insane, and very dangerous IMO.

And, while I hate to concede this, a manual is simply not ideal in these situations, when a quick shifting DCT and complete focus on steering, signaling, etc. would be better. It's only been a safety issue a couple of times, but that's been enough to give me some pause -- probably not enough for me to abandon MT, but some pause nonetheless.

 

Hi folks. I am new here. But I wanted to give some first hand info about the A3, since I just bought one. I am here because I own a 1997 NSX (my all time favorite vehicle), and my family fleet includes a Ridgeline, and an Element. My DD was the Ridgeline. I was just getting tired of it as a daily driver and decided to shop for a compact, sporty car.

I started with the 2015 GTI because of all the obvious reasons. 210 hp, 250+ lb-ft, a great chassis, and a nicely finished interior. Also available with a manual transmission. The previous ILX was not a contender for all the reasons most here acknowledge. Most of all it is a gussied up Civic with an engine Honda should have never put in that car. My opinion is that Honda/Acura should have never built the the first ILX.

I drove the GTI - and it is as good as everyone says. I didn't drive a car with the Performance Pack, which adds 10 hp, better brakes, and a limited slip. I drove the A3 knowing it is based on the same platform, wondering if it was worth the extra money. There are a few negatives on the GTI - unless you buy an Autobahn, the power seat is comical - just power backrest! Not even forward/aft. The Fender audio is sluggish with MP3 playback and has a thick sounding subwoofer mounted in the spare tire.

I drove a 2.0 Quattro, relatively lightly optioned (Premium Plus, B&O audio, Sport Package, Convenience Package, and 19 inch wheels). It didn't have NAV or any of the traffic/safety stuff. This car is a revelation.

- you can dive into just about any turn and power your way out of it without any loss of traction
- the engine pulls strongly without requiring high revs
- the DSG transmission, though just 6 speeds, shifts smoothly and nearly instantly in paddle shift mode
- the interior is subdued but beautifully finished as all Audis are

Negatives? Little interior storage. Audi MMI a bit confusing at first. A few too many clicks required to do some things. Familiarity and repetition help of course.

I bought the A3 I drove. It cost about $4-5K more than the GTI Autobahn. I didn't want NAV, which the GTI would have had. GTIs with the Performance Pack are selling for near MSRP now.

I suppose my A3 cost about $5K more than a loaded ILX. But it was an easy decision for me. The A3 is a 5.5 second 0-60 car, with Quattro, and a superb chassis. The ILX would have NAV and the advanced safety features.

In my view, the A3 is closer to what Acura should be trying to build. Honda/Acura needs to get back to its core - world class powertrains, great handling, and reliability. The ILX needs SH-AWD, and 20 more Hp.

Maybe the departure of Ito will help.

 

hoffdano: congrats on your new A3 Quattro! Sounds like a great car.

But if you paid c. $5k more than a top of the line ILX that means it had an msrp of c. $40k. For that price you could almost get a TLX 3.5 with the tech pkg and awd. Both are very nice cars.

The 2016 ILX imho doesn't really compete with the A3 with the 2.0 and AWD. It does, however, compete with the A3 1.8 with FWD. Compared to the base A3, the ILX is faster, has more features, and costs thousands of dollars less.

But these are all great choices. Congrats again on your new car!++

 

You might be right about comparing the A3 to the TLX based on price. But the Audi A4 or even the A6 might be the best comparisons to the TLX - based on size.

The point I wanted to make - but probably didn't do a good job of - is that ILX should aim higher than where it is. I think Acura for too long has been a step up car from Honda. It should be instead a class leading car.

The only Acura that is near head of class is the MDX. The upcoming NSX might be head of class - like the first one was.

My beef with is not so much with the ILX, but with Acura (and Honda) in general.

The four Hondas (97 NSX, 06 Ridgeline, 06 Pilot, and 04 Element) in my household (two are mine), all were bought because they were the best choice at the time. Not because I am loyal to Honda. I have no brand loyalty. I also owned a Honda motorcycle in the early 1980s. It just that today Honda has little to get my attention.

I think Acura needs the energy of Mazda infused to its product line. My NSX has 90 hp/liter, from an engine designed over 25 years ago with first generation VTEC. The best Honda has today is the RLX motor at 88 hp/liter. Can't they do better?

 

I think in many respects Acura now is class leading.

Regardless of price, the 2016 ILX gets to 60 faster than a base A3, will likely have better crash test scores (since Audi in general hasn't done that well in IIHS tests), more equipment, probably better reliability, etc.

The A3 has arguably better interior design and a lot more prestige. Again, it sounds like a great car, but few people can pay or choose to pay as much as c. $40k for a car of that size. But there are lots of choices for those who can or want to pay that amount for a small luxury performance car, since the BMW 328i and the Mercedes C-class have similar price tags. In fact, a C-class is usually closer to 50k!

In contrast, Acura has excellent engineering and reliability, and quite a bit of performance and luxury, starting at around 30k.

Again, you A3 sounds awesome. But then it should be for the price.

I personally think that if you look at the 2016 ILX, the 2015 TLX, the MDX and the RDX that they are all very compelling vehicles at the price point.

You can compare a vehicle to something in the Acura line up and say that Audi, BMW, or MB is better on one or more metric, but then again they cost c. $5k to $25k more for comparable models.

 

Indeed, for every "why can't H/A do [insert wish list of choice]" I want to say "why can't Mercedes make an Accord?" IOW, a roomy, reliable, family sedan and sell it for the mid-20's?

Little of this gets to the root difference between Acura and Euros. Most Euros allow you to build to order. This allows them to offer a car that only 3% of the population* will actually buy. This difference goes far deeper than the superficial "just add the option on the website" argument. It deals with supplier agreements, production line methodology, chassis design, how the captive financing company deals with approvals/rates/residuals, how dealers are allocated cars... all the way down to how a dealership deals with their particular cash flow situation. IOW, easier said than done. IMO, the 'problem' with most car site denizens is that, for them, the car business is viewed as a club or hobby, when in fact, it is a business.

*Edited to add that I don't mean 3% of the car buying population. I meant 3% of the buyers for that model, IOW, a car that sells 30K annually = 3% of 30K

 

not sure auto dimming mirrors deserves this kind of attention lol.

 

I agree. The A3 is/was the class leader in the segment, but now the ILX is very competitive, if not better in some aspects. The ILX is definitely a much better buy than the 1.8L model. While I think it is a better value than the 2.0T model, it is not a better car than the 2.0T model.

Really, Acura needs to make a 2.0T/AWD version of the ILX at the next FMC (which I don't think the current chassis can handle AWD), and then I believe it could be a leader in the segment (for all models offered).

 

Hoffdano your review is good but your opinion is shit. The idea that they should never have made the first gen ilx is completely trumped when you then state the ilx has more safety plus navigation over an audi that is 5k more.

Sounds like you think the ilx is crazy because it isn't 5k more expensive with more power and less luxury. What a crappy idea.

As for your choice being a no brainer. Some of us can't simply throw another 5k on the car they are buying or leasing. 5k would be a deal breaker for people already stepping up from a civic to the acura... Or for me... An integra to the ilx

 

The ILX has a specific purpose: It's not too much more than a high-end Honda (or any non-luxury brand for that matter), yet gets you into a more premium car that's nicer inside, more stylish, more unique, yet still makes some financial sense. The Audi A3 1.8T is really the same thing, but the Acura's price never reaches too high. It's a very logical car right where it is.
Why does the ILX need to aim higher? It already competes with most A3s that are sold (I believe they're mostly 1.8s, right?). If you want an Audi with quattro and lots of power, then buy an Audi. The point of the Acura is that you have some less individual options but the car is so much less money that it makes sense. As Colin said, designing more options for a car is extremely expensive. If you need to pay for all of that engineering, the price of the whole car goes up, and then options add to that.

Also, the ILX, especially 2016+, is nice enough. I never understood why general opinion is that the A3's interior is better. Yes, it is better after you load it up with fancy leather and other options, but I see general quality to be about the same. For $28-35k, I would not expect any nicer than the level of quality that the ILX is already at.

Hoffdano, you said that Honda needs to go back to "world class powertrains, great handling, and reliability." In what way does the ILX not do that? The engine in the ILX is absolutely fantastic, gets equally great fuel economy, all the reviews have gushed over the handling. The only reliability data available for the ILX (2013-14) has been top notch. I'd say Honda is doing just fine. And, HP/Liter is not the way to design an engine. Honda has made that series of motor (the 2.4 K-Series) in 2.0 liter displacements with about 200 hp before (K20A2, K20Z1, K20Z3, K20Z4), but you have to realize that it's a choice that they made not to. Obviously I'm not an engineer, but I'd guess that the larger displacement and lower power probably yields some substantial benefits. Just want to point out that they could have put a higher-strung engine in the car, had the capability, and didn't. 201 hp and 36 mpg are some great numbers... why mess with that?

 

Agreed pretty much 100%

 

Hoffdano: I think the Acura you might want to add to your collection at some point is the all new NSX!++

http://www.acura.com/FutureVehiclesNSX.aspx

 

I am also considering the A3, but need a car that will last easily 10 years. Did you think about the A3 reliability and longevity or you plan on trading before that?

 

Completely agree. I been following the A3 "saga" but when I build one up the $ get to high; I could buy the TLX for that money but I want an I4 and there is no ADV pack for the I4.

 

I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree that the current ILX is a pretty good car now and very competitive, though I disagree about your assessment of Acura.

Constant criticism of Acura lately has been that all you are getting is a "high end" Honda. Acura really needs to better separate themselves from Honda to be considered a luxury brand and different from Honda.

Acura is finally starting to use different trannys (8DCT, SH Hybrid), but they need to use better differentiated engines and offer more choices/options. You are also starting to see this on the MDX, with a lot more equipment options to choose. Putting a 2.0T and AWD in the ILX is coming, I am almost 100% certain. Honda/Acura has already publicly stated every model will eventually offer AWD and it will help better differentiate Acura from Honda.

Part of the luxury experience is choosing your options, which the Euros understand (almost too much really). While adding options may increase mfg cost, if they are standard across the line-up, the cost is minimized. So if Acura wants to be more luxury and less Honda, they really need to go that route.

 

Excellent points You earn it.

 

The A3 is my first venture into a German car (and I have been driving a long time). So I consider it a bit of a risk.

But there seems to be good data to show that VW/Audi have been improving steadily over the last decade. Consumer Reports brand new overall brand rankings show Audi 4th, behind Lexus, Mazda, and Toyota. Reliability of the brand is rated above average, same as Honda. I have friends with BMWs, Mercedes, Lexus, and Audi. On a purely anecdotal basis the Lexus and Audi vehicles have been the best of those four for ongoing reliability. My friends are vehicle buyers, not habitual lease drivers.

I intend to keep the A3 a long time, like I keep all of my vehicles. I take good care of my vehicles, and do a fair amount of my own maintenance.

 

I was this close to leasing an A3 but backed out at the last second because the lease deal was not what I originally agreed to and I don't NEED a new car. (the idea was to trade in my car and invest the cash after MSDs...but the sales rep didn't tell me they were taking my trade to pay down the cap cost. A huge no no).

That said, I look forward to test driving the ILX.

I was going to get the 2.0T Quattro...and it was a ROCKET.

Here's the big difference between the ILX and the A3 based on what I can put together:

The A3 will appeal more to badge snobs and those who MUST have AWD. The ILX will appeal to those who want an upscale car but can't shake the thought that they need value for their money. Acura couldn't do that with the original ILX because of the underpowered engine. I think the ILX is ready to compete.

If only it had SH-AWD, but based on reviews it sounds like it's not necessary for it to be a performer.

 

The new ILX is probably a fine car. I came here to just explain why a person that owns four Honda vehicles (and a Honda V4 motorcyle in the past) chose an A3 instead.

But where you (and others on this thread) and I differ is where I think Acura needs to be. Acura is a stagnant brand. Acura sales in 2014 were up just 1.5% in 2014 over 2013. My guess is that sales of SUVs were good, but cars declined. Audi was up 15.2%. BMW was up 9.8%. Lexus was up 13.7%. Honda was up just 1%.

As it stands today, Acura is a step from Honda, much like Lincoln is step up from Ford. Until the new NSX arrives, Acura has really nothing to shout about to people who appreciate great cars. Honda was once one for very best engine designers in the world. They built some cars that had an attitude, like the Integra Type R and the NSX.

I don't think Acura should make any slow cars. The first ILX with 150 hp is an example of something I think they should never do.

I agree that they don't need to build peaky engines that require 7000 rpm to get the vehicle moving. That has been part of Honda DNA for a long time. But there is nothing left to gain from VTEC version 10.

Even if Acura wants to be less expensive than the Germans (that is fine with me), they should still clearly approach them in overall performance. The halo of the new NSX will be wasted if they don't offer other vehicles that capture the excitement and spirit of the NSX.

There is no way the TLX shouldn't be noticeably quicker than an Accord V6. It isn't.

This is a corporate decision for Honda to make. I am just saying what I would do. I don't expect you to agree. At current course and speed I think Acura will fall further behind most of the "luxury" brands.