When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I didn't know our cars have rain sensing wipers. Is it in the settings?
I made an error. It sure doesn't! I spent some time driving my Accord today running earrands. The wiper stalk has the same markings (water drops for sensitivity to rain) as on my TLX A-Spec, which DID have rain sensing wipers. I therefore assumed...and it sure made an ass out of me. I still got to enjoy happy K20 engine sounds, at least.
I made an error. It sure doesn't! I spent some time driving my Accord today running earrands. The wiper stalk has the same markings (water drops for sensitivity to rain) as on my TLX A-Spec, which DID have rain sensing wipers. I therefore assumed...and it sure made an ass out of me. I still got to enjoy happy K20 engine sounds, at least.
Meh, don't be too hard on yourself. I'm debating on Borla. If you haven't yet, you owe it to yourself to install Acuity Stage 2. It will change your life
It's always about the quality, materials, design, rarity, the intangibles, etc, when going from something like an accord to a tlx, Audi a4 etc.
And the accord will always be the better bargain 100% of the time. After all, its sales volume is about 10x that if a tlx or a4. Its like why would anyone buy the Audi a4 when the accord 2.0t is so good while being $10, $20k cheaper.
The truth is that most mainstream non luxury card already have all the bells and whistles as luxury cars. The differences for lxuury cars are now shifted to other areas. Quietness, nvh, handling, ride comfort, materials, design, sound system, warranty, emotions, etc.
the features and functions of the mainstream cars keeps getting better and better as new generations come out. It's getting harder to differentiate mainstream and luxury for tech features and functionality especially infotainment systems.
~5 years ago my father-in-law's g/f wrecked her 3G TL (she loved that car, she was a hip lady and she and her deceased husband previously had a Porsche 911 and 928 so she liked sporty cars). She looked at the TLX and the 9G Accord, we emailed each other while she was shopping and test driving each. Long story short she got a 9G Accord Touring which for all the features and also had more powerful V6 and was still substantially cheaper than the 4 cylinder TLX FWD.
I'm still baffled by the V6 Type-S feature list being so much less than the 4 cylinder Advance, truly unreal to see so many features missing (360o camera, folding mirrors, headup display,....) and yet it costs more. I realize the V6 engine itself probably costs more but it's ludicrous to remove that many features.
the features and functions of the mainstream cars keeps getting better and better as new generations come out. It's getting harder to differentiate mainstream and luxury for tech features and functionality especially infotainment systems.
~5 years ago my father-in-law's g/f wrecked her 3G TL (she loved that car, she was a hip lady and she and her deceased husband previously had a Porsche 911 and 928 so she liked sporty cars). She looked at the TLX and the 9G Accord, we emailed each other while she was shopping and test driving each. Long story short she got a 9G Accord Touring which for all the features and also had more powerful V6 and was still substantially cheaper than the 4 cylinder TLX FWD.
I'm still baffled by the V6 Type-S feature list being so much less than the 4 cylinder Advance, truly unreal to see so many features missing (360o camera, folding mirrors, headup display,....) and yet it costs more. I realize the V6 engine itself probably costs more but it's ludicrous to remove that many features.
^^^
Then that’s not worth mid-50s unless the performance blows us out of the water. Hopefully it does. Just IMO.
It won’t, not with the figures posted. And BMW and the like are able to post ridiculous 0-60 times thanks to their launch control and drivetrain that can take a beating ... launches most would never dare do on their own cars. Honda being what they are likely won’t have the same engineering into theirs, tuning more for longevity and to prevent “abuse” rather than posting low 0-60 times. It’ll do about what you would expect a 355HP vehicle that weighs ~4,000lbs to do. It will probably do 0-60 in the mid-4’s and quarter mile in low-13’s, maybe breaking into the 12’s depending on launch. Anything worse than these numbers and Acura can go ahead and throw this car straight in the garbage.
As for cornering and whatnot, it’ll be as competent as it’s German rivals. Doubt it will be more than marginally better, if at all. Driver and steering feel is personal, so it will vary depending on the person.
The one feature I’m really surprised they didn’t put on the Type S is the HUD. You’d think that would be the one thing they made sure to put on their top performance model. Oh well, seems par for the course with the disappointment of the rest of the car.
Speaking of weight, it’s interesting to note that the TLX 2.0T A-Spec with SHAWD weighs a scant 25lb less than the RDX A-Spec with SHAWD. I’m willing to bet acceleration numbers are going to virtually identical, so expect a 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds, almost a full second behind the Accord 2.0T’s 5.5 seconds.
I do see one potential area the 2021 TLX may get an advantage over some of it's competition is the gear ratio spread in the 10AT.
The overall gear ratio spread is 10.15 (1st to 10th gear) whereas a M340i is 8.20 so it does have a advantage with having a very low 1st gear ratio.
Other factors such as final drive and tire size also factor in, but could be the TLX may provide more torque to the tires in 1st and 2nd for launch.
None the less very small transverse transaxle considering it has 4 planetary gear sets and uses the ring gear of one of those as the output to the final drive gear/differential.
Speaking of weight, it’s interesting to note that the TLX 2.0T A-Spec with SHAWD weighs a scant 25lb less than the RDX A-Spec with SHAWD. I’m willing to bet acceleration numbers are going to virtually identical, so expect a 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds, almost a full second behind the Accord 2.0T’s 5.5 seconds.
Doesn't that make it slower than the V6 TLX? Was sure it did it in 5.8s or so. Not very class compititive when involving a turbo versus others. The A4 easily does it in much less than 6s and it's engine is technically "smaller".
Speaking of weight, it’s interesting to note that the TLX 2.0T A-Spec with SHAWD weighs a scant 25lb less than the RDX A-Spec with SHAWD. I’m willing to bet acceleration numbers are going to virtually identical, so expect a 0-60 time of 6.4 seconds, almost a full second behind the Accord 2.0T’s 5.5 seconds.
Jon Ikeda, the Acura VP already confirmed that the 2021 TLX will be faster than the RDX despite it having a similar drivetrain so I wouldn't assume it's going to have the same time as an RDX. It will be tuned as a sports sedan. Remember this 2.0 turbo is capable of generating over 300 HP. Expect it to be closer to the Accord, if not faster.
Jon Ikeda, the Acura VP already confirmed that the 2021 TLX will be faster than the RDX despite it having a similar drivetrain so I wouldn't assume it's going to have the same time as an RDX. It will be tuned as a sports sedan. Remember this 2.0 turbo is capable of generating over 300 HP. Expect it to be closer to the Accord, if not faster.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Accord 2.0T weighs almost 600lb less than the TLX. Unless Acura is sandbagging their numbers, there is no way it's coming close to the Accord's 5.7s 0-60 sprint. For context, the weight differential between the Accord 2.0T and the TLX is TWICE that of the TLX and the heaviest version of the MDX. Think about that...
The TLX might be faster than the RDX by something like 0.1s in the quarter mile thanks to its aerodynamic advantage at higher speeds, but I'm not holding my breath on it being much faster 0-60. Unless Acura is lying about numbers, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that the numbers aren't in its favor:
Doesn't that make it slower than the V6 TLX? Was sure it did it in 5.8s or so. Not very class compititive when involving a turbo versus others. The A4 easily does it in much less than 6s and it's engine is technically "smaller".
In terms of numbers, the 3G RDX is slower than the 2G RDX, so logically it's probably the same for the 2G TLX compared to the 1G TLX. However, I can attest that on the streets the 3G feels faster, especially lower in the rev range...it's just that at WOT it runs out of steam at the top, and that's where it shows in the numbers.
Stretching out the TLX for sure added some unnecessary weight, a mistake given that the interior space didn't really grow much. I find it a waste since it's a few inches longer than my A4, but it's not more practical. The folding seat opening really affects it.
Last edited by pyrodan007; 08-28-2020 at 10:32 AM.
Jon Ikeda, the Acura VP already confirmed that the 2021 TLX will be faster than the RDX despite it having a similar drivetrain so I wouldn't assume it's going to have the same time as an RDX. It will be tuned as a sports sedan. Remember this 2.0 turbo is capable of generating over 300 HP. Expect it to be closer to the Accord, if not faster.
The G70 and Stinger has all those options in their top trim priced around $52K. It's strange that Acura doesn't even offer it. These are feature that a $35K Accord, Sonata, Camry and other mainstream vehicles have. How a luxury car in 2020 not have these features available is truly mind boggling.
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
+1, oh yeah it's not like the Type-S is a GT3 (and delete features for weight) so it really makes no sense to delete those features. Truly strange
Hopefully someone(s) at Honda/Acura corporate will realize this error and rectify the situation.
If its not faster than the old V6, I am not buying it
Current 3G RDX SH-AWD comes in a tick over 4k lbs. Current 1G TLX SH-AWD comes in at just over 3,800lbs. Assuming the weight stays in the same ballpark, the 2G TLX will be quicker/faster than the 3G RDX, but slower than the 1G TLX. I'm assuming the 2G TLX will do 0-60 in the very low 6s range while the 1G was doing it in the very high 5s range (5.8-6.0s). As someone stated prior, the 2G RDX is actually quicker to 60 than the 3G.
Coming from a 1G TLX, it's a nice step up to the 2G. Exterior is nice (tho the 1G is quite a looker too IMO), but the biggest thing is the interior. The 1G TLX interior is abysmal IMHO, and the 2G is a massive leap forward. Performance is similar, and I'd assume gas mileage is similar (3G RDX is thirsty). If you like everything about your 1G TLX, I'd keep it. If not, the 2G is certainly nice. If you're on the outside looking in, JMO, I'd skip the 2G TLX. Heck, I wouldn't be able to justify it over a 2.0T Accord, but that's just me.
The only thing holding my interest is the Type S and seeing if someone can eek out decent power from it. Hoping somewhere in the ballpark of 470+ HP, but adding 130+HP or so gets in the realm of making things very unreliable the more I think about it. Probably far less reliable than even the worst automakers out there ... not to mention it will likely be near impossible on the stock turbo, and that 10AT is a huge question mark. We'll see.
Current 3G RDX SH-AWD comes in a tick over 4k lbs. Current 1G TLX SH-AWD comes in at just over 3,800lbs. Assuming the weight stays in the same ballpark, the 2G TLX will be quicker/faster than the 3G RDX, but slower than the 1G TLX.
No need to assume about the weight, the specs from Acura are already out: Base FWD 3709 lbs, SH-AWD 3927 lbs Tech FWD 3756 lbs, SH-AWD 3982 lbs A-spec FWD 3784 lbs, SH-AWD 3990 lbs Advance FWD 3814 lbs, SH-AWD 4028 lbs
No need to assume about the weight, the specs from Acura are already out: Base FWD 3709 lbs, SH-AWD 3927 lbs Tech FWD 3756 lbs, SH-AWD 3982 lbs A-spec FWD 3784 lbs, SH-AWD 3990 lbs Advance FWD 3814 lbs, SH-AWD 4028 lbs
Oh, wow. I didn’t see them posted anywhere. My God. Ok, 2G TLX is going to surely be slower. Probably only a tenth or two quicker than the RDX (suspension, tires, transmission tubing, etc), if at all. Type S is going to easily be over 4k lbs, likely making it 200+lbs heavier than the S4, ie: slower. This thing is looking to be a disaster.
Oh, wow. I didn’t see them posted anywhere. My God. Ok, 2G TLX is going to surely be slower. Probably only a tenth or two quicker than the RDX (suspension, tires, transmission tubing, etc), if at all. Type S is going to easily be over 4k lbs, likely making it 200+lbs heavier than the S4, ie: slower. This thing is looking to be a disaster.
The accord 2.0t has been tested to do 5.3s for 0 to 60 and 13.9@104mph .
Where did you see that? I'm not sure how that is physically possible given that Motortrend found the much lighter CTR with a more powerful version of that same engine to do 0-60 in 5.4s and the quarter mile in 14.0@102.5mph.
Where did you see that? I'm not sure how that is physically possible given that Motortrend found the much lighter CTR with a more powerful version of that same engine to do 0-60 in 5.4s and the quarter mile in 14.0@102.5mph.
No need to assume about the weight, the specs from Acura are already out: Base FWD 3709 lbs, SH-AWD 3927 lbs Tech FWD 3756 lbs, SH-AWD 3982 lbs A-spec FWD 3784 lbs, SH-AWD 3990 lbs Advance FWD 3814 lbs, SH-AWD 4028 lbs
Ouch, a bit porky out of the chute:
Typically the weights are standard equipment, no options & many times dry. Be interesting to see what one actually looks like on a local or track scale.
Typically the weights are standard equipment, no options & many times dry. Be interesting to see what one actually looks like on a local or track scale.
You want to match a FWD car vs a RWD car yeah its 150lbs
Match a RWD vs SHAWD its closer to 370lbs
You really want to give up the SHAWD against the RWD 330?
Don't really think a Acura 2.0 FWD TLX will run with a RWD 330 since it hasn't yet & the V6 SHAWD struggles to match the RWD 4 cylinder. This is the current 330 4 cylinder vs the current Aspec V6 SHAWD.
C/D 330 RWD
TEST RESULTS Zero to 60 mph: 5.4 sec Zero to 100 mph: 14.4 sec Zero to 140 mph: 35.5 sec Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.4 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 4.1 sec Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 99 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 150 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.94 g
C/D TLX ASPEC SHAWD.
TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 5.7 sec Zero to 100 mph: 14.2 sec Zero to 120 mph: 22.5 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.1 sec Standing ¼-mile: 14.2 sec @ 100 mph Top speed (governor limited): 126 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 168 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.86 g
Will not bother with all the M340 numbers we have all seen them but as part of the weight thing"
Curb weight: 3813 lb RWD
Braking, 70–0 mph: 156 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.96 g
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 08-30-2020 at 07:09 PM.
I can only compare apples to apples..if it's better we can use the A4 as an example lol.
I think if the TLX 2.0T AWD can produce the same figures as the above TLX V6 AWD, that would be competitive. We all know Acura does not have any aggressive launch control system for the TLX nor does it allow for any aggressive brake torquing. Chances are in any 0-60mph contest, it will not be top of the class. Its strength is real world performance like the street start (5-60mph) and 1/4 mile trap speed. These two figures, especially the rolling start as shown above, are more than competitive. The street start vs 0-60mph really show how the car cannot be launched hard with all sorts of nannies preventing a hard launch.
Heck, even my NSX's launch control system launches at 2200rpm. A Porsche 911 Turbo launches at 5500rpm for comparison.
In any case, let's hope Acura will put some better rubber for the new TLX. The current TLX has some pretty slippery tires. For the BMW, the oem tires are Bridgestone Turanza T005. But you can get the optional Michelin Pilot Sport 4S. I personally have a set of the Pilot Sport 4S on the CTR and they are excellent tires.
C/D
TEST RESULTS Zero to 60 mph: 5.2 sec Zero to 100 mph: 13.9 sec Zero to 130 mph: 28.5 sec Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 6.4 sec Top gear, 30–50 mph: 3.2 sec Top gear, 50–70 mph: 3.9 sec Standing ¼-mile: 13.9 sec @ 100 mph Top speed (governor limited): 156 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 165 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.89 g
But you can also see how having the stock Turanza tires really hamper the grip and braking distance to a level closer to the 1g TLX.
You have a fair point about 5-60 vs 0-60, and if we use the Q5 and RDX as proxies for the A4 and TLX, we can see that while that gap is nowhere near as large as the 0-60 numbers would suggest, it still trails behind, even though it weighs 200lb less.
Q5 0-60: 5.8sec
Q5 5-60: 6.5sec
Q5 tested curb weight: 4180lb
RDX 0-60: 6.6sec
RDX 5-60: 7.0sec
RDX tested curb weight: 3990
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but given that the TLX will weigh almost as much as the RDX, and it has the same engine and transmission as the RDX, one would expect its straight line acceleration numbers to look more like the RDX's, and less like the Accord 2.0T's. The Accord actually gives the A4 a run for its money with near identical 5-60 times and higher trap speeds, but it also does weigh 250lb less than the A4, which itself will weigh about 300lb less than the TLX SH-AWD. Put 3 grownass men in the back of the Accord, and that's probably what the TLX SH-AWD will feel like at the drag strip.
In any case, let's hope Acura will put some better rubber for the new TLX. The current TLX has some pretty slippery tires. For the BMW, the oem tires are Bridgestone Turanza T005. But you can get the optional Michelin Pilot Sport 4S. I personally have a set of the Pilot Sport 4S on the CTR and they are excellent tires.
If you freeze-frame the new TLX line-off video, it looks like Bridgestone tires on the red one.
I'm running some Michelin Primacy MXV4 (V-rated) tires on my Accord-V6 . I understand they are just Luxury Performance Touring tires, but they run good all-around.
Guys hear me out here. I actually think a proper benchmark for the 2021 TLX 2.0T should be the... 2007 Acura RDX Zero to 60 mph: 6.4 sec Standing ¼-mile: 15.1 sec @ 92 mph
Curb weight: 3968 lbs
Engine: 2.3T, 240 HP, 260 lb-ft of torque
The 2007 RDX is just a notch lighter and quicker than the 2020 RDX, making it the perfect TLX comparison.
Thoughts?
You have a fair point about 5-60 vs 0-60, and if we use the Q5 and RDX as proxies for the A4 and TLX, we can see that while that gap is nowhere near as large as the 0-60 numbers would suggest, it still trails behind, even though it weighs 200lb less.
Q5 0-60: 5.8sec
Q5 5-60: 6.5sec
Q5 tested curb weight: 4180lb
RDX 0-60: 6.6sec
RDX 5-60: 7.0sec
RDX tested curb weight: 3990
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but given that the TLX will weigh almost as much as the RDX, and it has the same engine and transmission as the RDX, one would expect its straight line acceleration numbers to look more like the RDX's, and less like the Accord 2.0T's. The Accord actually gives the A4 a run for its money with near identical 5-60 times and higher trap speeds, but it also does weigh 250lb less than the A4, which itself will weigh about 300lb less than the TLX SH-AWD. Put 3 grownass men in the back of the Accord, and that's probably what the TLX SH-AWD will feel like at the drag strip.
I think I mentioned it before, but the problem with the RDX AWD is that, Honda has neutered the engine with the AWD model to protect the AWD system. With the new TLX, I'm wondering if this will still be an issue. The RDX FWD is quite a bit faster.
Originally Posted by Tesla1856
If you freeze-frame the new TLX line-off video, it looks like Bridgestone tires on the red one.
I'm running some Michelin Primacy MXV4 (V-rated) tires on my Accord-V6 . I understand they are just Luxury Performance Touring tires, but they run good all-around.
Seems like the tires may depend on the trim. The A-spec has some all season Michelins: https://ibb.co/8K7G6fc
Originally Posted by Edward'TLS
How well does the Pilot Sport 4S perform ? Are they better than the Pilot Super Sport ?
My 4G TL is using the Super Sport, and I really want to try out the new release Sport 4S.
The Super Sport tires are fantastic. I personally never had them before but my friend tracked his AMG GT S with the Super Sport and they have a lot of grip.
You won't go wrong with the 4S. I have them on the CTR and they provide a lot of grip on the dry. Mine has most of the bolt on's along with a off the shelf tune making about 350whp. With the Hondata traction control (very good at controlling wheelspin), it pulls pretty darn hard, more so than I'd expect from a FWD car that would typically run out of grip. They are also not too noisy, and do really well in the wet.
They are kinda pricey though. Since I have a dedicated set of wheels for track days, I think when these 4S are done, I will go with something less expensive, like the Firehawk Indy 500. I have them on my S2000 and they offer strong performance at a really good price. A lot of people actually use them for track days too.
Acura may have updated the pdf but there's no listed weight in those docs.
Acura took down the original PDF showing the curb weight a couple days ago. Then it said "coming soon", now there's a new PDF showing "TBD". But here's a copy of the original PDF showing the weights (props to @EE4Life) http://www.urvi.net/forumfiles/SB/20...20Features.PDF
The question is now why did Acura reveal the curb weight, take it down, and replace it with "TBD"?
The Super Sport tires are fantastic. I personally never had them before but my friend tracked his AMG GT S with the Super Sport and they have a lot of grip.
I am running PSS get flats (OEM) on both BMWs. The Pilot Sport 4S is its successor tire at about the same price. Lots of people say on the street you can't tell which is which. That would make it the P4S the #1B tire to have. What most will do is replace the PSS with P4S as they wear out. What is interesting is Michelin worked with the 4 main German manufactures in developing the new tire.
Acura took down the original PDF showing the curb weight a couple days ago. Then it said "coming soon", now there's a new PDF showing "TBD". But here's a copy of the original PDF showing the weights (props to @EE4Life) http://www.urvi.net/forumfiles/SB/20...20Features.PDF
The question is now why did Acura reveal the curb weight, take it down, and replace it with "TBD"?
Because there's a mole on this forum, and Acura is self-conscious about people calling their cars fat.
08-26-2020 | 12:35 PM
I still got to enjoy happy K20 engine sounds, at least.
the features and functions of the mainstream cars keeps getting better and better as new generations come out. It's getting harder to differentiate mainstream and luxury for tech features and functionality especially infotainment systems.
I don't see where the TOV found those numbers, the Acura link they posted has TBD for all the weights