So here's the new TL.



but.. i'm not a fan of the front wheel arches and shield.. so.. here's my fix.

Looks a lot like the Camry... And it also looks like a huge car.

That's a nice Lex- ERR I mean Acura.

If this is going to have 300+ HP and AWD, it's a keeper.

But at what price? And don't forget this thing is going to be huge, just like the new Accord. I like 300 hp and I like AWD, but I'm not interested in a Buick-sized sedan in the mid-$40s (remember that the current FWD TL Type-S is pushing $40k).

Heh, Diesel's fix just made it into the old TL.

Some "new" Acura. :/

My guess is it will be around the price of the Type-S, but we'll have to just wait and see, won't we? Still, if that configuration is a go, that sounds awesome. Remember, though: the current Evo X MR costs $40+ and is AWD and 300 HP, so it's competition one way or another, the Acura with the luxury bias and the Mitsu with the performance bias, obviously.

They might have some mechanical similarities on paper, but I would be shocked if one single person actually cross-shopped a TL and an EVO. Totally different market segments with night-and-day differences in driving experience. If nobody cross-shops them, they're not really "competition" in my opinion. Just my two cents.

I'm really not sure about the possibility of 300hp and AWD...however, Honda did say that the new Accord platform was designed with SH-AWD to run natively on either the Accord of the new TL, so we'll see. BUT the SH-AWD system in the past has really been FWD with some RW torque if needed (I think up to 30-40%ish to the RW if necessary).

I think SH-AWD can send up to 100% of the torque to the outside rear wheel while cornerning. Admittedly, when you're going in a straight line, power's going nearly completely through the front wheels. But the active torque vectoring of the SH-AWD make it behave in a much more enthusiast-friendly fashion than your run-of-the-mill slip-and-grip system. My understanding is that understeer is basically eliminated.

Heh, I like Diesel's chop...it fixes two of the blatantly odd looking things on the car.

The Acura TL is really too big of a car for me, as an enthusiast, to get excited about. Particularly when it looks as lame as this.

Call me crazy or boring or weird or whatever, but I consider the 2004-2008 Acura TL to be a truly excellent design. Alright, so it's very conservative, but it's exceedingly handsome and has aged way better than any of its rivals (particularly the pre-facelifted pre-2007 models).

^ agree. It may not be exciting by most standards, both the TL is extremely handsome in comparison to its rivals (avalon, maxima?), which by now definitely look dated IMO.

I now go to a place with a TL Type-S on a regular basis...and I always stare at it. I know its FWD (really not a problem...but I still have a prejudice) and I know its an Acura, but its so pretty.

The ass is Saturn-tastic:

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/more-spy-sh...cura-tl/937392/

^^ Wow, that car looks enormous! From the looks of things, it should be around the same size as the GS and M35/45?!

I've always thought of the TL as a midsize sport sedan, not a compact. It's generally been cheaper than those others you mention (given the Accord platform and all), but even the outgoing car doesn't look any smaller than those to my eyes. And the incoming TL should be larger than the outgoing TL, comparing the old Accord and the new Accord for reference.

Maybe it's some lens distortion, but that rear end looks bulbous and hideous. The interior looks pretty nifty though, I like those sharp lines inside.

That's not lens distortion, that's Acura's new design language.

It's an ugly Altima.

Ladies and gentlemen...

it gets worse...

Dear god that's awful.

I shit you not; I made the same facial expressions that I made when I watched 2 girls 1 cup for the first time.

They've gone completely mad.

More pics:

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/09/2009-ac...fully-revealed/

It's hideous from every single angle outside, and the interior is a sea of black plastic buttons. The speedo and tach have center hubs on the needles that appear to be an inch wide or more...an ugly styling detail I'd expect on a half-ton pickup, not a $40k luxury car. They've really, really done an awful job with the styling, inside and out.

How disappointing, they went from the extremely handsome TSX and TL of yore, to... this and the new TL.

Seriously acura, seriously?

The TSX was actually styled in Japan since it is the JDM Accord (and Euro), and honestly I like it. The Acura grille mucks it up a bit, but it's a pretty evolutionary shape which is a good thing. The TL on the other hand...I guess Honda was smoking crack. And by the way, it gets even worse for the TL...



Waaay too fussy, and waaay too many buttons. I don't find it very attractive either.

i like the edgy design..its a far cry from the usual american 'luxury' cars i see.

The interior looks fine to me, the exterior is too much like a boat.

But it's Japanese...

the TSX looked really bad in picture....but it doesn't look that bad in person.....

but the TL.....i'm not too sure about the back....

Really? I thought it looked at least as bad in person, if not worse.

I don't think anything can save this particular car.

I mean... some people said the Cadillac CTS was designed with a ruler. Wait until they see this...

The second-gen CTS actually has some beautifully-executed curves:



The new TL, though, is just a disaster.

Am I alone in thinking the TSX doesn't look bad? Admittedly, I saw it without the Acura grille, but it was a pretty inoffensive shape.

correction: japanese car sold in US.

I agree. The current Type-S is a really stunningly good looking car, despite being an old design. it was done right the first time - this new TL seems to be a step backwards; larger, uglier, and more powerful wasn't really what the TL needed. It already had a great motor (that 3.2 is strong!) and just needed all wheel drive, or RWD, or something.

Still, the new SH-AWD spec with the 3.7L V6 and AWD will be nice.

I say the new TSX, grill aside, is an improvement stylistically over the old model.

I think it's better in some places and worse in others. I think the treatment of the rear end is much better - tighter, more detailed, but still cleaner. The front is just too busy - not even considering the hilarious grille area.

I do like the interior better, though.

Autoblog's first drive of the TL is here. I'm still in shock that they called it good looking, but at least it's cohesive unlike the facelifted RL. Also, there's SH--AWD now, so now you have NO reason to buy an RL.

EDIT: Side-on it looks quite good, but the front & rear? Tacky and overstyled.

Check out that huge swath of nothingness under the headlight. It looks kinda like a GT-R's ass.

Did anybody else notice that there's no more manual transmission?



http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...photopanel..3.*

It's...bulbous.

TL Type-S with manual gearbox and AWD .. there is some hope after all.

It's still a massive car.

Now Acura's got a gap in their lineup between the TSX and the TL IMO. The TL is a cut-rate 5-series competitor and the TSX is somewhere between the VW Jetta and the base Audi A4. That leaves room for a whole 'nother model in my opinion, or at least room for the TSX to gain a little grunt (maybe a bigger 4-banger in the next year or two?)

A four-banger clean diesel TSX should be on the way next year, but the turbo four from the RDX won't fit into the TSX, according to Acura execs.

I think a clean diesel TSX with optional SH-AWD would bridge the gap nicely. But of course, Honda/Acura never does anything I think it should nowadays.

Never even considered the RDX's turbo motor. I was thinking more like a 2.6 or 2.7 liter I4 based on the 2.4.

I think the TSX will still be seen as uncompetitive with the other cars in its class so long as it has a naturally-aspirated inline-four, regardless of the displacement. It needs more cylinders or forced induction to stack up against the IS, the G, the 3-Series, the C-Class, and the A4. A turbo four (in either gas or diesel) seemed like the obvious answer to me.

I see the TSX as being more like a sedan answer to the A3, a 4-door answer to the 1-series, or a japanese alternative to the Volvo S40. It's not about to be a IS/G/3/C/A4 competitor. I was just thinking that it needs more grunt just to keep up with that entry-entry-level luxury class.

another spaceship...

I think that's a perfect description of the first-gen TSX. As for the second-gen, I'm not so sure what the heck Acura is trying to do. It's way too big to compete with the A3, 1-Series, C30, etc. It's eight inches longer than a 328i sedan, an inch wider, and most surprising, about 60 lbs heavier! It's also much softer to drive than the first-generation, according to Edmunds--not the sort of enthusiastic, fun-loving driving experience of the first-gen. And then there's the price...about $30k on the dot even without the "technology package," it's only about $2,000 less than many of the RWD sport sedans. Admittedly, the 3 and the C are pretty stripped at that price, but the IS250 and the G35 are both well-equipped, even without options, and they're only about two grand more than the Acura. And finally, there's how Acura is portraying it. Acura's hammering the "luxury" theme with TV and magazine ads, and lists the 328i and the A4 2.0T Quattro as the two "common competitors" on the Acura site.

You could argue that instead of competing with the IS, G, 3, and A4, the second-gen TSX is aimed at the 9-3 and the S40. But (a) the Swedes both have turbos, and (b) it's not like they're great sales successes. For Acura, a successful brand, to target two floundering cars from floundering brands makes no sense. And this is coming from a Swede-o-phile.

I knew the new TSX was bigger than the old one but I never knew it was THAT much bigger. Still, price-wise it's still in the segment I talked about...