Acura ILX Forums banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I currently have 2005 Honda Accord V6, will I find the Acura ILX 2.0L auto to be much slower in comparison? I'm really bored with my Accord, as I've had this car for 7.5 years. I really like the design of this Acura and the price is within my budget. I initially wanted an Audi A4, but found that the car will cost significantly more if i want to add technology package. I'd like to hear your thoughts, thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
i have an ILX tech package and yes it is pretty slow but over all its pretty well rounded. the motor is really the only down side but keep in mind its a honda, give the market time and parts will soon be readily available.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
491 Posts
It won't be that bad as far as power.. you will notice a difference, however.. the ILX will be far more nimble given that it's a few hundred lbs less.. but it is 90HP difference
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Hi there. I am too thinking of the ILX. The 150 hp might be a deal breaker. How does the car drive on freeway? Does it easily get to 70-75 mph easily? My dealer says he has one on lease and he has no issues with the acceleration. And he used to be a race car driver. Would love to hear from actual owners.

My other options are the TSX for more power and luxury, or the Civic, since it's about $4k cheaper. Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
i haven't had any issues, its runs just fine just not fast.. its just as fast if not slightly quicker then a civic or any base car that you'd see driving around. It just not as powerful as what youd expect from a "luxury sports sedan"
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
437 Posts
I hope Mendel and the boys in Torrance are paying attention to these posts ......the 2.4L should be the base engine for this car period!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
MPG's from the 2.4 to 2.0 isn't that bad at all, not a huge difference, so if MPG's is why they included the 2.0 maybe it's time for it to go.

I wouldn't mind paying a bit more for gas just for a better driving experience.


2.0 = 24 (city) / 35 (hwy) / 28 (combined)

2.4 = 22 (city) / 31 (hwy) / 25 (combined)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
491 Posts
If you wait to '14 they may add the 2.4 ED motor.. 180hp/180tq with 36 on a CVT.. that's on the Accord.. I'd anticipate something similar.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
491 Posts
Some CVTs are really notchy and take away that smooth shifting feeling. Which is an issue for city/urban driving.. Where the car is constantly trying to determine the correct gear. The feedback on the Accord's CVT so far has been positive though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
I like Continuously variable transmission's due to how they deliver more torque at lower RPM's unlike some automatic transmissions. It's good if you could care less for gears and having control over them.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top