2008 Acura Tsx - Midnight Blue - 71k - 2.4l I4 Automatic Fwd Sedan Leather on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 Acura ILX gets $2,200 price cut to go with redesign, more features

Acura brought a relatively substantial update to the 2019 ILX, and now it has chopped prices to boot. It starts at $26,895 including destination charges, a $2,200 reduction from the 2018 model. The price came down, yet Acura added to the car's standard equipment; that's something we can get behind. Now the full suite of Acura's driver assistance features come standard, instead of as a $1,300 option. Exterior changes are the most obvious, with lots of new sheetmetal both front and back. You'll still be paying if you want the updated dual-screen infotainment system though. Equipped similarly to a 2018 model, it's $3,550 cheaper with the Premium and Technology packages. That same figure rings true for the A-Spec models too — an ILX with every package equipped tops out at $32,545 now, versus the $36,095 from before. We're all for the heavy price cuts, but the ILX remains the same relatively boring vehicle under the new bodywork. The A-Spec model is still only an appearance package, and doesn't really pay homage to the sporty Acura compacts of the past. A 1997 Acura Integra Type R just sold for $63,800 at Barrett-Jackson. Seeing that, plus the fanfare surrounding the Civic Type R arriving in America, shows that there's clearly tons of untapped hype surrounding small, hot Hondas. A true successor to the Integra Type R, or even just the GS-R, would have enthusiasts tripping over themselves. Keeping the price low for such a vehicle like we see for the 2019 ILX would be the cherry on top. Featured video: Featured Gallery 2019 Acura ILX View 11 Photos Acura Luxury Sedan

A car writer's year in new vehicles [w/video]

Christmas is only a week away. The New Year is just around the corner. As 2014 draws to a close, I'm not the only one taking stock of the year that's we're almost shut of. Depending on who you are or what you do, the end of the year can bring to mind tax bills, school semesters or scheduling dental appointments. For me, for the last eight or nine years, at least a small part of this transitory time is occupied with recalling the cars I've driven over the preceding 12 months. Since I started writing about and reviewing cars in 2006, I've done an uneven job of tracking every vehicle I've been in, each year. Last year I made a resolution to be better about it, and the result is a spreadsheet with model names, dates, notes and some basic facts and figures. Armed with this basic data and a yen for year-end stories, I figured it would be interesting to parse the figures and quantify my year in cars in a way I'd never done before. The results are, well, they're a little bizarre, honestly. And I think they'll affect how I approach this gig in 2015. {C} My tally for the year is 68 cars, as of this writing. Before the calendar flips to 2015 it'll be as high as 73. Let me give you a tiny bit of background about how automotive journalists typically get cars to test. There are basically two pools of vehicles I drive on a regular basis: media fleet vehicles and those available on "first drive" programs. The latter group is pretty self-explanatory. Journalists are gathered in one location (sometimes local, sometimes far-flung) with a new model(s), there's usually a day of driving, then we report back to you with our impressions. Media fleet vehicles are different. These are distributed to publications and individual journalists far and wide, and the test period goes from a few days to a week or more. Whereas first drives almost always result in a piece of review content, fleet loans only sometimes do. Other times they serve to give context about brands, segments, technology and the like, to editors and writers. So, adding up the loans I've had out of the press fleet and things I've driven at events, my tally for the year is 68 cars, as of this writing. Before the calendar flips to 2015, it'll be as high as 73. At one of the buff books like Car and Driver or Motor Trend, reviewers might rotate through five cars a week, or more. I know that number sounds high, but as best I can tell, it's pretty average for the full-time professionals in this business.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.