By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
If they ever returned to the small coupe market, I'd rather see something like the current TSX in a coupe body with a shorter wheelbase to help bring the weight down.
A base FWD, 205hp coupe/hatch (vs 197hp civic si) with real rear seat room and comfort, and priced at 25k. $28k for Nav.
Or a Type-S FWD/AWD, 240+ Coupe/Hatch with the same specs.
Hopefully we could see a drop top coming out of this as soon BMW will have 4(Z4,3,6,1).
I guess coupes are beginning to sell again as people leave their SUVS. Acura could put this car against the CLK, 328, C70, 9-3, A4, and many others.
-Cj
that was a funny post, though.
I looked at the S2000 when I was in the market for my last car. If they had a coupe version (preferably with a hatchback) I would have snapped it up. A convertible just doesn't interest me. I think a trimmed down coupe based on the TSX with a few more ponies under the hood would fit the bill nicely.
I'd like to see more companies bring back the sports coupe since that's what I prefer to drive. Preferably RWD and with good horsepower to weight and handling in the $30-35K range (I don't ask for much). Something with the space/looks/HP of my Mustang without the cheap build and Robert Earle Hughes girth.
Neither Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus have anything that fits the bill, nor does detroit(except for the very overweight Mustang). It's looking like a Nissan will be my next car with the Z350 and Altima Coupe on their lots.
I think the Z or G35 coupe would be your best bet. But, I'll go (way) out on a limb and suggest that you drive a Saab if you haven't lately.
I and many others suspect the Sports4 concept is a good indicator of what we'll see from Acura in the $30-35K performance bracket in the next few years. I think it could be a great machine, but it doesn't seem like your cup of tea.
(As long as I have a link to it, I'll add that the Sports4 has the best interpretation of Acura's pentagonal grille.)
I LOVE THE SPORTS-4!! I agree its the best pentagonal grille I've seen on an acura(other than the TSX/TL) in a while. I also love the squinty lights with the little hook on the edge. ITs should sooo be the next TSX!!
-Cj
I don't give it much credibility, but it's an interesting notion.
I think if the RL could look more expensive(especially in the rear) and cost less, it would sell. I think acura needs a sporty yet, luxurious rear end as the fronts are ok.
I think the best/most expensive looking rears are the:
SAAB 9-3
Volvo s40
GS350 though not as affordable
Put plain and simple, acura needs a styling direction. BMW has the "bangle-butt", audi has the grilles, lexus has L-finesse", volvo has "scandinavian simplicity", and honda is conservative.
The TL is a great direction for acura. Its aggressive, polite, handsome, and mature.
BTW, I hope they are finishing up touches on the 4.5lv8 with 350hp (fingers crossed) to power the MDX and RL and have a reason for Quad exhaust. :P
-Cj
I for one, love the look of Acuras sedans (including the maligned RL) and I hope they DO NOT follow suit like every one else and make every model a super size version of the next model down. Look at Lexus, Volvo, Benz, BMW, etc, all their sedan models have pretty much identical character, just larger. It gets dull after a while... At least Acura, for the moment still has some uniqueness to their sedan lineup. No model mimmicks the lower or higher one in style.
That's a good thing. :shades:
And theres no mistaking anything for that model. I was with my mom and she saw her first ls460. Her was: "That thing look bad!! (Thats a good thing)" She just knew it was a lexus.
When she saw the RL, she thought it was an accord. This is coming from the same person who thought the TSX and TL were the same. :sick: She thought the 3series was an accord also :sick:
The 9-3 was new in 2003 and i saw my first one a few months ago. It was different and I liked the way it looked. It stood out by not standing out.
The RSX and TSX look alike in the rear. I'm hoping it was just cancelled to be released as the coupe version of the Tsx and priced similarly to the TSX.
-Cj
Each large project leader (LPL) is given a great deal of freedom. That's part of Honda's "respect for everyone" motto. The LPLs are confined by engineering goals and costs, but their creativity is generally turned loose.
This is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we get very imaginative solutions. On the other, we get a different look for each vehicle and little consistency in terms of packages.
:confuse:
The TL, TSX, RSX, and MDX had alot in common yet they were all different. Now:
RDX and MDX are similar in the rear
MDX and RL are similar in the front
RL MDX RDX similar inside
TSX similar with TL inside and out.
Another thing is that BMWs share the Angel/Devil eye. BMW calls it the corona ring. They look fantastic and i hope Acura could get something from that.
I guess acura could have LEDS in the slanted part of the squint and an accord/cadillac/Scion tC like strip in the rear across the trunk.
-Cj
I'm just glad acura hasn't caught on to those "trendy" side vents.
I like the whole signal mirror thing too. I think it would be so cool if they had little things like headlamps washers, rear sunshades ect, ect.
It would be cool if acura beat volvo in a safety feature. An airbag that covers the rear most glass in a vehicle. Keeping glass off of anyone in the 3rd row seems like a good idea to me.
-Cj
-Cj
And if they are not going to get serious with the RL they should just drop it.
With the TSX I would be ok with the shawd. I would like to see power jump to 280 along with a 240'ish base engine. I would also like to see a coupe variant as well as a wagon version like europe has.
Across the board I would like to see:
keyless ignition
blind spot warning system
active cruise
more safety systems.
Or instead of tweaking an old engine, making a new engine with the same numbers or better. I think honda is capable of getting at least 220hp from it. I see that as good news for CR-V, Element, and even accord owners that want more power without a v6. The accord is likely to get a 260hp engine from the current TL.
Of course, the TSX could get that engine Turbo'd to or the 2.3l unit.
New Engines, more hp and the same or similar MPG ratings. I see no problem at Acura with this.
Acuras should be new slogan that i made up:
Acura- Traditionally Untraditional :shades:
-Cj
Also have an "S" version much like the 191hp civic
RDX and RL need the most help now and I give a quick comment on each.
RDX
*Drop the turbo and just add a 258hp 3.2l v6 from the TL.
*6AT
*No standard SH-AWD!!
*A Sport package that includes a 6MT option, Sh-awd, sport suspension ect. Basically the RDX should be an SUV version of the TSX and TL like the x3 is the 3series.
RL
*Push button start (from s2000?)
*Heads up display
*7AT
*Stretch the current platform and add a v8. 320hp and 300lbs ft through SH-AWD. Come on, volvo has a 311hp v8... :mad: optional 250hp and 400lbs ft diesel
*Heated seats all around option with heated/cooled up front
*Quad zone temperature with the center arm rest having the controls
Basically what i'm saying is to make the RL more of an E-class competitor and the RDX MORE of an x3 competetor.
-Cj
While I would join you as a critic of excess weight, I think you need to distiguish between excess weight that is the direct result of increased size, structural rigidity/integrity and added features - vs. that portion that is just sloppy, inefficient engineering.
All cars have gained weight over the past 5, 10, 15,20+ years, it seems. My 1995 Nissan Maxima SE 5-speed weighed in at 3,001 lbs and, even though it can carry 5 adults, feels more nimble than many smaller cars that weigh in the 3,300-3,500+ lb range today.
It's a little hard to criticize part of the added weight of a current Civic that is considerably roomier than a 20+ year old Accord. But it's easy for me to think Nissan has their head up one of their body caveties when they produce a 3,500lb 350Z 2-seat sports car and claim it is in the spirit of the 2,400 lb 240Z. And I am quick to criticize Acura for being stubborn to fail to see the flaws of the RL, which, no bigger than my Maxima inside, weighs in at nearly 4,000 lbs and is not only not as nimble, but slower.
Return to the size/weights of the 1970's? Doubtful. But I'd agree they could do a lot better.
1991 Accord LX: 2.2-liter, 125 HP/145 lb-ft*, 24/29 mpg (5MT), 2857 lb (MT)
2006 Civic LX: 1.8-liter, 140 HP/128 lb-ft, 30/38 mpg (5MT), 2685 lb (MT)
Current Civic is about as big (or small) on the inside as Accord from 15 years ago. It is smaller on the outside, is 170 lb lighter, has more power and comparable torque (*1991 Accord rating used the old standard), much better fuel economy, and we're not talking about safety and standard features yet. They all add weight.
Now, Acura lineup may be a different story. Still, they will wait at least until redesign of RL. If they do indeed offer one, they might as well do it on a new platform.
OH I agree! I think its ok to update the accord with some new gadgets that the camry and altima have like Keyless go on the EX models. The big red button from the s2000 is a start but maybe something more contemporary would work well here.
IMO, the TSX should be refreshed and do a 6 year cycle. Bring it out about the same time as the next A4. The current A4 is a refresh. The TL... RWD. I finally made up my mind! RWD!! Yeah, not going to happen... I say make another acura model. Let the TL be a GS competitor but being a tad more sporty than luxurious like the GS and the new model [Lets say XL] to be like the ES. The RL just needs to retire or go on hiatus.
With all this money honda and Acura are making with all this sales gains, they should really put some into a 4th platform and V8 engine. Seriously, other than being lost in RL, where is this money going? I rarely see honda commercials! The only1 i know features MR. Opportunity and thats 1 a year.
IMO, its time for acura to do like their slogan... ADVANCE!!
-Cj
The Xl would be like the Lexus ES. Powerful quiet seniors FWD car. Honestly cars like this do well. Look at the ES sales compared to the IS and the Cadillac DTS sales compared to the STS. A car thats like the old 3.2TL minus transmission problems. 5 Choices:
1) Color EXT
2) Color INT INC WOOD
3) Navigation
4) Panoramic Sunroof or NAY
Build off the 08 Accord but give it premium features. Push Button Start, Steering Xenons, 5/6AT, 14way leather Heated & Cooled Seats up front, Tls sound system, TCS, VSA, adjustable pedals, Tilt-Telescopic steering wheel, Adaptive Cruise conrol, 6+airbags, sunshades at the rear and sides, honda unique version of Fords SYNC, and other minor ways to up the ES. Price it like $38.
It should out sell the lexus because Lexus makes u pay like $8k to get everything. This should be about $40 fully loaded. Still Cheaper than loaded ES. only requirement, IT MUST LOOK ATTRACTIVE TO NORMAL PEOPLE!! This is how people remember acura. Maybe optional AWD.
If this car does well, Don't be surprised if infiniti brings back the I or J series and do the same.
The TL should be RWD and Sporty like the Lexus GS or 535I. Standard 310hp 3.7lv6 or optional stronger v8. Acura could just drop the RL or use it as this TL and make the real TL the "XL".
Wishful Thinking gone too far...
-Cj
Question: Given what you like about Acura, what car would you choose to replace your TL if Acura retains FWD/SH-AWD architecture, rather than following your suggestions?
Incidentally, I own a '99 TL and am very pleased with it, as I gather you were with yours.
My suggestions are more about Acura's marketing strategy, to build an image and to broaden its appeal. AHM has not marketed Acura well for most part. It is very easy to criticize Acura brand for that reason. Complacency can be dangerous for the brand, and certainly won't help build an image that Acura needs to succeed in the longer term. Or we just might see a return of the mid 90s, after which Acura had to work hard to rebuild itself.
Infiniti was nowhere to be seen for a while, and despite pf lacking refinement in several areas, it seems to garner more respect than Acura in the automotive world.
I think we agree. Not having seen the '08s and '09s, I'll keep an open mind but, based on the '07s, for me it's for Acura to lose. My reasons are that the TL is a better value than the BMW 3-Series, and it's more refined than the Infiniti G35. Each of these would be satisfying choices, but, even with FWD, the combination of the TL's refinement, reliability, quality, styling, traction in inclement weather, and price trump the advantages of the other two. That said, I'd gladly swap the traction advantage in slippery conditions for the superior handling and feel associated with RWD, if Acura converted the TL to RWD.
What's the probability that at least one or two Acura sedans will go RWD? I'd say that much depends on the longevity of the current horsepower race, since Honda is very aware of the limitations of applying lots of torque to the front wheels.
Another consideration is that, for everyday driving, even spirited driving on the highway or back roads, the TL's limits are high enough to satisfy the majority, and, probably even the majority of enthusiasts. You pretty much have to drive on the track to reap the advantages of RWD in agressive driving.
Acuras problem seems to be that they are leaning more to comfort than sport. But each vehicle (-Rl & RDX) has an option to make it more sporty. The TL has type-S, MDX has sport package and TSX has 6MT. But now their interiors are more technological than luxurious. Yes the RL has keyless start but the TL doesnt.
I hope with this next redesign, the TL goes the MDX/mercedes benz route. You get a choice for a spory car or a luxurious car. Thats somewhat missing now. Its missing the NEWer comfort items like pushbutton start, cooled/heated seats, and sunshades around the cabbin.
With that said, if I had $35k to spend on a vehicle thats sport and luxurious, I'd spend it on a passat 3.6. Its interior looks better and its a faster car than the TL. IMO, its even better than the RL...
But i still love acura! FWD and all!
-Cj
Interesting choice! Although I've never driven a Passat, I'd be willing to consider it...assuming quality and reliability has improved significantly in the new ones. While the Passat V6 is the closest VW competitor to the TL, I'd chose the 2.0 Turbo Passat Wolfsburg Edition over the V6. Reason? It's fast enough for a FWD, and has better weight distribution than the V6. For the same reason I'd choose the I-4 over the V6 in the Accord.
But HP war offers an interesting scenario. Established brands like BMW and Mercedes that sell on name, don’t really play HP card to sell their mainstream models. Acura happens to be mid-pack. Those two can do so because they have been consistent and passionate about their offerings for decades. Spec sheet means little to their success.
They also know marketing and things that strike a chord with potential buyers. This is how the porky BMW X5/3.0 gets away with measly 225 lb-ft while the lighter Acura MDX gets labeled as lacking low end torque even with 275 lb-ft on tap. The problem is within Acura. And this problem also applies to RL and RDX, the other two 4000+ lb vehicles.
Most of the world around Acura has moved on to (at least) 6AT, and not just for namesake. BMW X5 is geared incredibly short in low gears, with the first gear overall drive ratio being an insanely short 18.5:1. Compare that to the first gear in Acura MDX, which has an overall drive ratio of 12.23:1.
That difference translates to 50% greater torque multiplication in the BMW, a way the automaker has used for years to mask lack of torque and provide the perception of having stronger horses. People buy it! They buy the feel.
Acura doesn’t need to go that far, as it actually affects mid-range acceleration, but with a 6AT, they can go far enough to improve low end thrust in low gears without compromising mid range and top end and while still managing to reduce cruising rpm. The top gear in MDX has an overall drive ratio of 2.44:1, so that provides for a 5.0:1 span (span = first gear ratio divided by top gear ratio). A typical 6AT provides for a CVT-like 6.0:1 gear span. And this is how it would help.
Acura could make the top gear taller by 5%, to have an overall drive ratio of 2.32:1. This will bring down the cruising rpm at 60 mph from 1700 rpm to about 1600 rpm, and improve highway fuel economy by a bit.
But since a 6.0:1 span should be possible with 6AT, the first gear could now be almost 14% shorter, or 13.92:1. And that will translate to 14% greater thrust at any speed in first gear, equivalent to a bump in torque from 275 lb-ft to 310+ lb-ft at peak with old gearing.
And that is how the rest of the world is making an impression, while Acura continues to be in its own world. This benefit, however, would mostly help SH-AWD vehicles or if RWD versions were available. Can’t go too tight TL which has plenty of torque to begin with, for a front driver, as going for greater multiplier would result in increased need to address torque steer issues. And that would be another reason why Acura must start considering RWD platform for RL as well as TL.
I feel that Honda spends too much engineering resources trying to minimize shortcomings of FWD cars with big power. I can only imagine if they didn't have to go that far and spent those resources in improving design elements on a RWD chassis that will naturally offer greater balance to start with. SH-AWD is perhaps another example of such engineering exercise. I love it, and think Acura should continue to improve and offer it. But, it shouldn't be used to overcome the shortcomings of a base platform. Because if it is, compromises are being made elsewhere, as in weight (225-250 lb), costs (at least $2K-3K)and efficiency (greater drive train loss resulting in reduced performance and reduced fuel economy).
As an example of the law of diminishing returns, and the more isn't necessarily better argument, I prefer 5-speed manual transmissions over 6-speed ones. Mazda offers both in the MX-5 Miata, and if I were buying a Miata I'd choose the 5-speed. The extra gear would yield slightly better acceleration times, but I hardly ever utilize a late model car's full acceleration potential anyway. Therefore, I don't consider the extra ratio to be an attribute. In fact, I personally don't like really close ratios in a manual. I prefer somewhat wider ratios. Now, I'll quickly add that 4-speeds, not to mention the old 3-speeds, were insufficient. However, as you point out, more is almost always better for marketing reasons. Example: The very low aspect ratio tires may provide excellent dry weather adhesion, and great numbers, so the automotive press generally applaud them. However, for most real life driving, the tradeoff is negative, in terms of initial and replacement cost, traction on wet and icy pavements, ride quality, longevity, etc. My point is that, for me, the overall tradeoffs associated with 60 aspect tires vs. 50 or 45 is definitely negative.
The above arguments are not inconsistent with my preference for RWD for Acura, and FWD for Honda, as Nissan-Infiniti and BMW-MINI have done. I might buy another FWD TL, but, like you, I'd prefer a RWD alternative to the Accord when I spend $30,000+. That means that a 4-cylinder (whether it be a 250-300 hp turbo or a 205 hp NA) RWD TSX would appeal to me more than the FWD one, even though the arguments for converting to RWD are more compelling for the Tl and RL than for the TSX. Since I'm not a big fan of SUVs (especially the mid size and large ones), minivans and pickups, I'm not passionate about what Honda does with these models, but I think that RWD would be better, from a marketing perspective, for these too.
Take any of the 6AT in the market, and divide the first gear ratio by the sixth. The result will be 6 or slightly better than that. Do the same with 5MT/6MT/4AT/5AT and you will see the number range from about 4 to 5, and in some exceptional cases (Acura RL), 5.4. CVTs tend to have this ratio at about 6 as well. So, effectively, a 6AT can provide for similar span as a CVT, which helps in multiple ways. I doubt 7AT or 8AT do any better, and the law of diminishing returns would certainly apply there.
Between TL and a VW engine, the difference is likely in the efficiency of the engine itself. In fact, I find TL’s engine (or Honda’s J-series V6 in general) to be very efficient design when it comes to power delivery and fuel economy. It isn’t hard at all for me to get 25 mpg from TL in mixed driving, which is very impressive for a heavy car that can perform as well. But with a 6AT, things can improve further.
Take RL for example (which needs it more than TL). I’m quoting its first gear overall drive ratio from memory but it is about 12.2:1. Its 5AT also happens to be one of the widest span 5AT that I have noticed so far, and results in a top gear overall drive ratio of 2.21:1. Throw in a 6AT, with at least 6:1 span, and while keeping the top gear as is, the first gear could be 10-11% shorter, or about 13.5:1. The result would be equivalent to re-rating the engine to about 285 lb-ft (while keeping the old ratios). It will instantaneously change the perception of “not enough power at low speeds”. These are the kind of marketing tools Honda needs to use for Acura.
Simply advertising “V8-like power” doesn’t work well. People try to feel power and think only in one dimension (that power should push you back in the seat or that torque is a must, not power). They rarely relate power to its true definition which is to balance thrust and speed. With taller ratios, Honda approach leads to more HP used towards more speed while proportionately decreasing thrust. BMW goes the other way. They make 260 HP/225 lb-ft vehicle “feel” more powerful than another with 300 HP/275 lb-ft.
If Acura sticks with normally aspirated K24 for TSX, 6AT would help it immensely.