2015 Acura TLX SH-AWD Long-Term Road Test - Introduction
Edmunds.com
Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
2015 Acura TLX SH-AWD Long-Term Road Test - Introduction
We added an all-new 2015 Acura TLX SH-AWD to our long-term fleet to see if it has what it takes to replace not one, but two models in the company's lineup.
Tagged:
0
Comments
a base "luxury" vehicle with a 200 hp NA 4 cylinder and $32k price tag to start...
there's your problem.
other than that they have toned down the beak and the rest of the car looks pretty decent if not memorable. honda/acura has its moments but in general... what a waste of potential.
the 2000 honda civic si was the first new car i ever looked at. unfortunately i didn't graduate college until 2001 and by then they had ruined it.
I like the understated shape just fine, I can even live with the beak. But for $32k I expect a stronger engine. A fully loaded Passat startes $6k less than the base price of the TLX. The 1.8TSI has about 20 fewer HP, but the same torque 2,000 rpm's lower. For about $4k more than the base TLX the Passat V6 offers 280hp, 60 more ft/lbs torque 1,700 rpms lower and and touch screen nav.
The TLX doesn't seem to offer much in the way of value and it doesn't offer enough prestige to offset the lack of value
Both the TL and TSX would have benefited from slight enhancements rather than 'bold' re-dos back then. They were both solid cars with good followings. Acura squandered that and even came out and said that they knew a lot of people didn't like the beak but they were sticking with it anyways.
I wish more car companies would learn that if you have something good just keep making it better rather than start all over with each update.
Right or wrong, people are still far less afraid of a higher mileage Honda than GM
320i : 180hp/200lbft; $33.5k+; 0-60mph: 6.5s
IS250: 204hp/185lbft; $36.5k+; 0-60mph: 7.5s (AWD 7.8s)
ATS 2.5: 202hp/191lbft; $34k+; 0-60mph in 7.4s
TLX 2.4: 206hp/182lbft; $32k+; 0-60mph in 6.8s
In particular, the ATS 2.5 also uses a NA 4 cylinder engine and its starting pricing is even more expensive than the TLX 2.4.
And I think we all know that the TLX in its base form is the most equipped model out of the above 4 cars.
That's not to say the TLX is the best car. The TLX for starter does not have RWD. But I think it's important to get the facts straight. The above tells me the base TLX has the lowest base price while being above average in terms of straight line performance. In fact, the TLX has a higher 1/4 mile trap speed than the 320i. It indicates to me that the 320i is very good at getting off the line for a decent 0-60mph run, but after that, the TLX would catch up.
As for the Passat, I don't understand what you mean by "fully loaded Passat STARTS at $6k less than the TLX base price." Are you looking at the fully loaded price, or the start price? The 1.8T Sport starts at $27k, that's $5k less than the TLX, not $6k. Once you get an automatic and a different paint color, the price becomes $29k, which is $3k less than TLX. At that level however, it doesn't come close to the TLX in terms of features. For instance, this Passat has halogen headlights instead of fully LED headlights, 6-speed auto instead of 8-speed dual clutch, rearview cam vs multiview rear cam, just to name a few.
The 280hp Passat V6 that you mentioned starts at $36k. and you are correct that's about $4k more than the base TLX. However, if you want power, then there's also the 290hp TLX that starts at just above $35k. While the Passat V6 comes standard with navigation, again, the TLX has LED headlights, a better reear cam, and 9-speed auto instead of 6-speed. The TLX V6 is also faster by quite a bit as it does 0-60mph in the 5's while the Passat V6 needs over 6 seconds. Besides, you can get a Accord V6 Touring which has navigation, adaptive cruise control, full LED headlights, etc for $33.5k.
none of those cars are big sellers. (feel free to prove me wrong.)
none of them are very desirable. the ATS is a flop and very overpriced; particularly with the NA 4 cylinder.
the 320i is probably the most appealing to me because, well, we own an e90 and z3... so... but i also know it is under rated in hp/tq and also i am sure that there is a tune out there in the aftermarket that would provide even more hp/tq.
the is250 is probably the second most interesting. my friend had one in AWD and liked it quite a bit.
but the main thing that attracts me to all of them over the TLX is they are RWD based. win automatically over the TLX.
i definitely wouldn't take this over an a3/a4 with the 2.0T; another under rated and very tune-able motor.
so you made me expand a bit on my answer.... still... ANY "luxury" manufacturer offering a NA 4 cylinder model is only doing it to reach an advertising price point to get you in the door and then up-sell you on a higher model. (except for Audi/BMW/Lexus who have the brand cache to charge more. they will ALSO get you on the fact that a bare bones 320i or A3/A4 doesn't exist. the closest you will get is their lease specials.)
except acura. i get the sense that their NA 4 cylinder model will have a higher expected percentage of sales than an ats/320i/is250...
The A4 2.0T engine is more powerful and has significantly more torque than the base TLX, But the base price is $35.5k and at that point, you can get the 290hp TLX V6. Also, the $35.5k A4 comes with a CVT, which isn't exactly desirable if you are a car enthusiast, right?
I agree that the models I mentioned above are mostly for getting customers into the showroom. It will be a tough ask to find a base 320i for instance. This in my opinion is what makes the base TLX stand out a bit more. While the TLX is already very well equipped at $32k with decent performance, handling, and ride comfort, you are looking at $36k or more for others in this class. And at $36k, you can either get a TLX 2.4 Tech that is pretty much fully loaded, or a TLX V6 that is faster than 328i, A4 2.0T, C300, and is just as fast as a IS350, ATS 3.6, etc.
In the end, it's all based on personal priorities. If RWD is your thing, then forget the A4 or TLX. But in terms of features, performance, handling, ride comfort, etc, the TLX is a pretty solid entry in this segment.
except it isn't.
Fusion Titanium AWD MSRP $30,290
200S AWD MSRP $29,025
Legacy Limited 3.6R MSRP $29,595
considering you can get the fusion at invoice and the 200S below invoice those are the real values. with 0% offers from ford and chrylser you are saving $4-5K over an acura whose only unique offerings are 4-wheel steering, LED headlights, and presumably a slightly nicer dealership experience.
i am sure you might say that the TLX doesn't compete with any of those cars and first, i'd disagree, and second i'd argue it doesn't really compete with BMW, Cadillac, or Lexus.
acura is to honda what lincoln is to ford. just the next trim level up from the parent company; hardly viewed as a distinct manufacturer and not seriously considered by most luxury vehicle consumers. the mere fact you have to make the value argument proves it isn't a true luxury manufacturer. the koreans understand that...
that is to say, someone who is looking at bmw, cadillac, or lexus probably never even considers an acura. conversely, someone looking at the acura might consider a bmw, MB, lexus, infiniti, lesux, etc...
if they are looking specifically for AWD midsize sedans they probably will also consider the fusion, 200S/C, and legacy. most likely they are just honda fanboys looking for the next trim level up.
Also, I already mentioned the Honda Accord when you were talking about the Passat. I already mentioned that for $33.5k, you get a fully loaded Accord with adaptive cruise control, full LED lights, etc that would also smokey the Fusion, 200S, Passat V6, or Legacy that you mentioned.
The thing is, while Honda and Ford are looking to sell 300-400k Accords and Fusions annually, Acura is looking at selling about 40k TLXs. Don't you think that's a pretty big difference in terms of volume? Sure, the TLX is no BMW or Lexus or Mercedes, but certainly it's a lot more rare than a bread and butter Accord. That's why if you compare the value proposition, a car like the TLX would always lose out to the Accord.
3/4series 8,748
Clcass 7,072
ES 4,192
Q50 3,649
TLX 3,419
IS 3,383
ATS 2,028
MKZ 1,834
A4 1,743
Are some of you really trying to compare a Chrysler 200 or Ford Fusion to a TLX?
Clearly you haven't driven both.
http://wardsauto.com/wards-10-best-interiors/2015-wards-10-best-interiors-nominee-acura-tlx#slide-0-field_images-1238621
"2015 Ward's 10 Best Interiors Nominee: Acura TLX
TLX fit-and-finish excellent."
I've only been in the TLX a couple of times for a test drive, but it's no different. They're good cars, made well, with good materials, fit and finish.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/03/question-day-automaker-will-never-buy/
But somewhat like you, I guess, I find the GTI somewhat compelling in spite of myself. But when I learned that the "engine sounds" in the GTI are mostly synthetic it helped end what little interest I had in it. VW has apparently for several years installed a "Soundaktor" to pump fake engine sounds into the car. As far as I know, Acura engine sounds are real.