No Reserve 2003 Acura 3.2 Tl 3.2l V6 Auto Moonroof Navigation Clean Nice! on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Acura RDX Review [w/video]

Acura is deeply confused as a brand. Is it sporty or luxurious? Conservative or avant garde? Truly premium, or just premium for Honda? At its heart, there is a simple truth: despite confused characters, Acura vehicles are usually very competent. The new TLX, for example, is a smart, comfortable, near-premium sedan. The new ILX, meanwhile, is a huge improvement over its predecessor, and finally feels like the entry-level, premium four-door stepping stone Acura needs. Then there's the RDX. Placed in a very hot segment, the Honda CR-V-based crossover never quite caught on. For its first six years on the market, it couldn't even break 25,000 annual sales. The more mainstream redesign in 2013 made some waves, nearly doubling sales, but Acura still fell way behind the competition. In 2014, the Lexus RX outsold the RDX nearly three to one. For 2016, the RDX gets a substantial refresh. The biggest visual update comes from Acura's polarizing, JewelEye LED headlights, which are standard. These aren't the best looking headlights on the market, but the many 'eyes' are better executed on the RDX than any other Acura. The LED daytime running lights round out a nice face during light hours, too. More subtle tweaks are given to the bumpers, with larger intakes in front and bigger reflector housings around back. The seats are broad, flat, and comfortable. The big change in the cabin cannot, sadly, be called an improvement. It's the addition of the Honda/Acura dual-screen system, and while it gives the interior a techy vibe, the user experience is convoluted and unintuitive. The rest of the cabin's design, however, is easy to like. Material quality is adequate for the segment. Plastics are abundant, but are soft to the touch, while fit is impressive and typically Honda throughout. The steering wheel is a parts shelf item and feels just a bit too large for a crossover of this size. The seats are broad, flat, and comfortable, and backseat passengers are treated quite well. Even with the driver's seat set for your six-foot, one-inch author, there's plenty of space in back, especially for long-legged folks. Small changes are found under the RDX's hood, where the 3.5-liter i-VTEC V6 gains six horsepower and one pound-foot of torque. Small changes are found under the RDX's hood, where the 3.5-liter i-VTEC V6 gains six horsepower and one pound-foot of torque. What hasn't changed, however, is this engine's general character.

2017 Acura NSX First Drive [w/video]

The 2017 Acura NSX is heavy. It outweighs the original 1990 car by more than 800 pounds and is over 300 heavier than a Chevrolet Corvette Z06. The NSX is insanely complicated, with an assist motor between the twin-turbo V6 and the nine-speed dual-clutch transmission, plus two torque-vectoring electric motors at the front axle. And the NSX is expensive. It will probably cost $170,000 when it goes on sale in Spring 2016. Commence trolling. If you hadn't guessed, the new NSX isn't much like the first generation built from 1990 to 2005. But the two cars share a common philosophy. Both are Acura's interpretation of what a modern, everyday supercar should be. Based on the new car, things have changed a lot in the last 25 years. For project leader Ted Klaus, the original NSX was one reason he started working at Honda. At the 1990 Detroit Auto Show, "I sat watching that car for a while. A really long while. Even just looking at that car I could see the deep, advanced, functional beauty." The most difficult thing with the new NSX, says Klaus, is to explain how a heavier and more complicated car can outperform other cars in a way that feels like traditional lightweighting. View 33 Photos This is not the way the NSX was supposed to be at first. The original plan was a transverse-mounted, naturally aspirated engine just like the first car. The NSX has a giant bag of neat tricks, but to understand them takes a lengthy explanation that starts with the Sport Hybrid SH-AWD powertrain. Behind the cockpit is a 75-degree, twin-turbocharged, 3.5-liter V6, made specifically for the NSX. On its own it puts out 500 horsepower and 406 pound-feet of torque. The rest of Honda's lineup uses a 60-degree layout, but the wider angle here lowers the center of gravity. Behind the engine is the rear assist motor, with 47 hp and 100 lb-ft. Hanging off the rear of that is the nine-speed dual-clutch, developed in-house. In between the front wheels is the Twin Motor Unit (TMU), a pair of 36-hp, 54-lb-ft electric motors that add or subtract forces to their respective sides. The Power Drive unit manages the electronics, and sits in the center spine of the car like a traditional prop shaft. A lithium-ion battery pack is behind the pair of seats, on the cold side of the firewall. Total system output is 573 hp and 476 lb-ft. This is not the way the NSX was supposed to be at first. The original plan was a transverse-mounted, naturally aspirated engine just like the first car.

Motorweek goes retro with '80s hot hatch shootout

Motorweek's decades of history on television make it the perfect medium to look back into the automotive past and see how things are different now. It recently added old road test videos to its YouTube channel of the Acura NSX and Toyota Supra, as well as the Ferrari F40. For one of its newest flashback clips, Motorweek has exhumed an affordable five-car challenge of 1986's premiere hot hatches.
By today's standards, this is an eclectic field that features fondly remembered classics like the Volkswagen GTI 16-valve and Acura Integra. However, it also throws in some nearly forgotten contenders like the Dodge Colt Turbo and Ford Escort GT. The angular Toyota Corolla FX16 GT-S rounds out the group.
It's fascinating to watch Motorweek run the quintet through the slalom, down the drag strip and on various roads. What's most striking in this clip is the difference in the definition of a performance car between then and now. With its 16-valve, 1.8-liter four-cylinder, the GTI is the burliest of the contenders with 123 horsepower, but it still takes 8.8 seconds to reach 60 miles per hour. By today's standards, that would make it a plain-jane economy car, and not even a particularly quick one.