Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Acura TSX
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Mfgs sometimes cheat and quote a figure for the diameter of the tire tracks which is slightly less than the true wall-to-wall turning diameter since the body overhangs the tires a bit. This adds further noise to the figures.
Whatever. The TSX has a relatively large turning radius/diameter, especially considering its size, so if urban nimbleness is paramount, this isn't a great choice.
- Mark
cusafr
Besides, the Mazda6 is supposed to have an awful turning diameter at 38.4ft, and I don't find it to be a problem at all, even in Washington DC. I expected to. My wife's Camry has a much better turning radius, but the car is heftier, so I prefer mine. She might be able to turn more sharply, but I'm able to guage my turns better- which is priceless.
Likewise, the TSX is smaller than the Accord, so even with the larger turning radius, I'd bet it's easier to navigate.
Wide rear view used to be Honda's forte. Even the '92-95 3-dr Civic was amazing for a hatchback. But not this new Accord, especially the narrower TSX.
So Mazda6 & Mercedes C-class are still good. Protege & 3-series coupe are OK. 4-dr 3-series so so. Beetle/Passat & G35 are horrible. Especially the G35 w/ Premium package's comfy rear headrests, which don't leave any gap at the corners. Mazda RX-8's front high-back seats blocked the very-wide rear-glass view.
In general, car companies tend to make the tradeoff towards tighter turning diameters in non-performance models and put up with bigger turning diameters in higher performance models. It's a tradeoff.
- Mark
Btw, accord (dx), camry (le and previous entry level model)and passat have come standard with 15" wheels for years.
And yesss... if you bought the manual you probably don't mind shifting down to pass, and if like me actually enjoy it. Who cares about top gear acceleration - it is a tool to compare cars not a way to drive.
Here is an example of a car that is the opposite of the TSX regarding gearing (I will say that 2,500 still isn't horrible, as my Integra is at 2,900 at 60). My wife used to have a Quantum (pre Passat) with a 1.7 liter engine. It had less than 80 hp (though nearly 100 lb-ft of
torque) but had two overdrive gears. The car was geared for economy for sure, and would go 96 mph in 3rd gear (according to manual). It was turning about 2,100 rpm at 60 in 5th gear. Despite the tall gearing and lack of power, the car rarely had to be downshifted on the highway. Sure you had to down shift (sometimes 2 gears)to pass on a two lane road, no big deal.
So now the TSX has nearly 3 times the power and nearly twice the torque. It should be able to do fine at 2,000 rpm at 60 (and does so with the automatic). Keep in mind that most people drive faster than 60 (speed limit here in SD is 75 and most people cruise at 80) so the car will probably be cruising at closer to 2,500 or more anyway.
I just tire of my Integra on long trips with the tach pegged over 4,000 rpm for hours at a time. Even a smooth engine is anoying at those rpms for extended periods.
Now to play devils advocate I will say that even my high revving Integra which is only EPA rated 28 on the highway with the 5 speed will easily get over 40 mpg if driven under 65. Maybe the TSX is just not EPA friendly, like my Integra, and is not really 5 mpg worse than the Accord. I know in the 80's Honda had two versions of the CRX one with an upshift light and one without. The one with the light was EPA rated at 5-6 mpg better than the one without the light. They were mechanically identical, EPA was just not shifting soon enough.
TSX commercial just came on TV - wierd!
"The highway is a 10 mile trip with an average speed of 48 mph. The vehicle is started 'hot' and there is very little idling and no stops."
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/factshts/fefact01.pdf
The above is straight out of the EPA test guidelines. There is definately shifting involved in the test, since the average is only 48, yet highway speeds are simulted as well - obviously.
It is actually an interesting read. Some obscure facts from the document.
If two cars are within 500 lbs of each other, and have the same engine and tranny they can share EPA mileage figures. In otherwords if the TSX had used the same tranny as the Accord and same engine they would not have had to retest it. For that matter they could put the engine and tranny in the Civic and would not have to retest it since it would be with 500 lbs of the Accord. This of course means tht Honda does not have to retest the Accord if they put a 6-speed manual in the V-6 sedan - they can use the coupe figures.
EPA adjusts actual measured values by multiplying city by .9 and highway figures by .78.
If we cared only about the race to 60, then yes, it may not be worth it. But IMO, there is more to driving and that can include 25% premium in power output if not a 23% loss of fuel economy. IMO, in Accord, manual transmission is an alternate transmission for people who like to shift themselves. In TSX, however, I believe the automatic transmission is the alternate for people who want TSX but do not care to shift. So, there is a difference. TSX is about driving and performance. The gearing certainly takes advantage of the engine's output with the manual, but not with the automatic however. So, the automatic to automatic difference is negligible (23/32 in TSX to 24/33 in Accord).
Strange as it may sound, but there aren't many compact cars that can match Accord I-4 in fuel economy, so the TSX benchmark is pretty good to begin with. And then we can look around and see this,
Mazda6/V6: 19/27 mpg (manual)
BMW 325: 20/29 mpg (manual)
TSX: 21/29 mpg (manual)
Prelude: 22/27 mpg (manual)
Altima 2.5: 23/29 mpg (manual)
The Automatic is barely over 2,000 rpm at 60 why must the manual be nearly 2,500?
If the engine does not whine about doing its business, I don't see why this would be an issue. 2500 rpm may actually be quite relaxed, if not as much as the automatic, but then, the auto is not about performance either.
The 6-spd. Celica GTS has a very tall overdrive 6th gear, and still does 0-60 in well under 7 seconds.
0-60 wouldn't need sixth gear, just two and in some cases (current Civic Si), three.
If Acura wants to continue to use 6-spd. trannys, it would be wise to keep the first five cogs close-ratio and adopt a "highway crawler" overdrive.
I feel Acura/Honda offers 6-speed only if they want to push the limits, from offering an alternative to slushbox (in Accord I-4) to offering an alternative with performance being a priority. In CL-S, they tightened the sixth gear which also resulted in 1 mpg lower rating compared to the automatic so TSX would not be the first 6-speed along the lines.
fredvh
Can anyone tell me what the RPM are on the TSX with automatic transmission at exactly 70 mph?
Accord I-4 and TSX have identical top gear overall drive ratio but due to difference in wheel size (P205/60/R16 versus P215/50/R17) the overall gearing in TSX will be slightly shorter. They will both turn 1970-1990 rpm at 60 mph, and about 2300 rpm at 70 mph.
bodble2
During the short time I had my Y2K Prelude, my impression was that the car just BEGGED for 6th gear. I was in 5th gear quite a bit just driving around town. A 6th gear would have made for much more pleasant highway cruising.
I always thought that Prelude needed sixth gear as well since the intermediate ratios were pretty wide for the redline to extract the most out of the engine. TSX takes care of that issue, and also provides a taller final gear.
All that TSX might need to be a serious track car may be LSD, performance rubber and brakes. Before too long, we may see some of them running on track.
That said, I don't see 2500 rpm as too high. My 98 Accord cruises at 2300 rpm going 60 mph (and it is automatic).
victord1
Does anybody know what is the turning radius for the TSX??? I thought I read it somewhere which said it was 40 ft. Then I received an acura brochure for the TSX today which claimed it to be 20 ft!?!?!?! I find that very hard to believe.
Turning diameter = 2X turning radius.
40 Ft. by cusafr
That is awlful large for this size car. The Maxima owners complain of the 40 Ft. turning diameter of their cars. Is it the tire size causing this?
Steering Gear Ratio can play a big role in determining turning diameter. Most 'sport' steering setup will end up in larger diameter while 'easy' steering (Camry) can deliver smaller diameter. This can also be related to steering wheel lock-to-lock turn (less turns greater diameter). For example, you will notice a change between 1996-2000 Civic and 2001+ Civic (tighter steering) resulting in added turning diameter. Likewise, there is a substantial difference between base Acura TL and Acura TL Type-S. Likewise, Mazda6 has a turning diameter of 39 ft.
This may be a compromise between high speed steering setup versus low speed steering. Honda has offered VGS (Variable Gear Steering) in S2000 in Japan that varies the steering wheel gear ratio depending on speed to optimize the effectiveness over a varied speed range. At higher speed, the gearing becomes tight (lock to lock turn is only 1.4 turns), increasing to about 2.8 turns at low speeds (and improved low speed maneuverability). By comparison, open wheel racecars have their steering optimized for high (and very high) speeds, and they take 120 ft to turn around.
creakid1
Wide rear view used to be Honda's forte. Even the '92-95 3-dr Civic was amazing for a hatchback. But not this new Accord, especially the narrower TSX.
I don't know about the TSX, but the only disappointment in the new Accord to me was the reduced forward visibility. And yes, in the past, Acura/Honda used all-around visibility as one of the greatest strengths. I remember looking at the first generation Acura CL brochure and it boasted an industry best 319 degree visibility from the driver seat. A compromise between crash-safety/style and large glass windows may be been made. Compared to our 1998 Accord, the biggest difference appears to be the height of the dash (more Euro-like high in the new Accord/TSX), and some difference in the way the windshield is angled and the size of it. More upright and less glass this time. This may have helped in improving the front seat headroom somewhat.
And 5mm wheel width can make a difference. Work out the trig and this results in a wheel that can turn 1.2 degrees less at full lock. Just eyeballing my two cars, typical full-steering-lock wheel angles are about 30 degrees. So 1.2 degrees less max wheel angle would result in about a 4% increase in turning circle diameter. Thats about 1.5' increase on a typical car. Hardly insignificant.
Believe me, I'm not trying to say that the TSX has a great turning circle. I just want to point out that people critical of the TSX like to pull superior specs from other cars in isolation and say "the TSX should be able to do as well or better." Well, it probably could IF the engineers wanted to make the tradeoffs necessary. In car design, there is seldom a free lunch.
- Mark
I should point out that manual gearing in Accord I-4 and TSX are similar in the sense that they will both deliver similar speeds. Which means, TSX is taking advantage of its extra power towards performance. So, while the sixth gear ratio in TSX is 0.659:1, it is also the fifth gear ratio in Accord. The difference is in the axle ratio, where TSX is using 4.756:1 and Accord has 4.389:1.
That said, the following speeds will be attained in Accord/TSX in top three gears,
Gear 1: 35 mph / 35 mph
Gear 2: 64 mph / 61 mph
Gear 3: 84 mph / 84 mph
Gear 4: 111 mph / 111 mph
Now, if a person, cruising at 60 mph in sixth (corresponds to 2300 rpm in Accord and 2500 rpm in TSX) wants to accelerate 80 mph, the best acceleration will be achieved by dropping to the third gear in both. The revs in TSX would jump from 2500 rpm to 5100 rpm (or about 160 HP at the wheels) compared to 4000 rpm in Accord (or about 120 HP at the wheels) and there would be a 40 HP advantage with the Acura resulting in better acceleration, thanks to an additional 30-35% thrust available at the wheels.
It is easy to overlook points like these.
Combine the low torque with 3,300lbs.+ to haul around, and I guess you would need to keep the revs up a bit.
I must correct, 6-speed TSX is 3230 lb. The heavier, automatic transmission TSX revs lower.
Here is another perspective using significant specs (all manual transmissions) that affect cruising engine speed (calculated at 60 mph in top gear).
Honda Accord V6:
Wheel Diameter: 25.46 inch
Final Gear Overall Drive Ratio: 2.534:1
RPM at 60 mph = 60 * 336 * 2.534/25.46 = 2007 rpm.
Honda Accord I-4:
Wheel Diameter: 25.69 inch
Final Gear Overall Drive Ratio: 2.892:1
RPM at 60 mph = 60 * 336 * 2.892/25.69 = 2270 rpm.
Acura TSX:
Wheel Diameter: 25.46 inch
Final Gear Overall Drive Ratio: 3.134:1
RPM at 60 mph = 60 * 336 * 3.134/25.46 = 2482 rpm.
BMW 325:
Wheel Diameter: 24.88 inch
Final Gear Overall Drive Ratio: 3.150:1
RPM at 60 mph = 60 * 336 * 3.150/24.88 = 2552 rpm.
To get past anything quickly, you'll have to downshift the car anyway, so why not make 6th a bit taller? 2,000RPM @ 60MPH would return excellent fuel economy, particularly in such a slippery car.
First, 2000 rpm in 6th at 60-mph would be a very lazy gear. I don't recall the dyno charts but I'd suspect the TSX would be making somewhere about 50-hp at this RPM, which would cause the car to slow dramatically on grades and require downshifting for even leisurely passing. Heck, I think a 3100-lb, 360-ft-lb, V8-powered Corvette is turning about 1700 at 60. A TSX with this gearing would drive at 60-mph in top gear, but just barely. It would feel very unresponsive.
While mfgs used to occasionally ship boxes (or multi-speed transaxles) with an overdrive high gear that was used only for low-rev highway cruising, they don't any more. I think it revolves around an emphasis on performance, cheap gas, and drivers wanting no-downshift passing performance. And most drivers prefer boxes where the gears are relatively evenly spaced.
If you want a really tall, overdrive high gear, you either have to spread all the other ratios out (hurting all aspects of performance to some degree) or you have to have a big jump to the final high gear.
Overwhelmingly the biggest complaint people have against the TSX is that it lacks torque to haul its mass. Gearing it taller, either across the entire box or just in the top gear, only makes the problem worse.
- Mark
To get down to 2000 rpm cruising engine speed, TSX 6-speed would need the top gear ratio of only 0.53:1 (compared to 0.659:1). The overall drive ratio would now be only 2.53:1, and match that of Accord V6/6-speed and BMW 330i/6-speed gearing. The question would then be, why couldn't Accord V6 and BMW 330 use even taller gearing? Remember, Accord I-4 and TSX with automatic rev lower than BMW 330 (6-speed) and Accord V6 (6-speed).
As for fuel economy, I believe TSX would be within 8-10% of Accord's I-4 with manual on extended freeway drive, i.e. as long as additional power is not used. That is already pretty good (31-32 mpg), better than most compact to midsize sedans.
Just glancing at the dyno charts, the gearing you're suggesting (which is a lot shorter than your earlier 2K @ 60 mph suggestion) would have the engine down about 35-hp from the gearing the TSX actually has at 80-mph. This is the equivalent of adding about 560-lbs to the car or about three passengers. So a TSX geared as you suggested would, in high gear, feel about like a TSX with a three passengers while the TSX geared as it comes form Acura would feel like it had no passengers (just the driver).
I just don't think many drivers want to burden their TSX with the weight of three extra passengers for 1-2 mpg and a drop of 500 rpm in freeway cruising. Of course, downshifting would always shed the weight, but the feel of the car in high gear would definitely be one of "keep your momentum up." This car just isn't competing with the Civic Hybrid.
- Mark
To me overdrive means exactly that. It is for very high speeds or very easy cruising. For your standard low speed back canyon road, just put er in 5th.
Only going uphill or while changing speed does weight matter, but at 80mph wind will be the primary force against the car on all but the steepest grades- and this is something the TSX excels at. For this reason, I'd suspect the TSX would perform well with a taller 6th gear.
The Suburban may of had 200hp like the TSX, but at what RPM? I'd be willing to bet the Suburban would make at least 50% more horsepower at 2000rpm than the TSX. Horsepower is torque at a certain RPM, and the giant Chevy has more of it at lower RPMs. The difference probably about covers the difference in wind resistance between the two cars, which is why the Suburban can get away with that gearing for cruising. I bet the TSX is much more capable going uphill.
Likewise, the Corvette, while making over 400hp at its peak, probably chugs along with *only* about 80hp at 1300rpms (estimating 350ft-lbs there), plenty for its sleek shape. The TSX would have to be at over twice that RPM to make that amount of power, and is geared nearly this high. So, I bet top gear acceleration in a Vette is not much more than the TSX at 60mph :-)
Beyond that is a different story!!!
Which just goes to show- if you can't go fast with 100hp, 200hp won't help you.
M
I remember an interesting piece of information from an article on CVT that they can provide an exceptional spread of gear ratios (the first to final gear ratio may be 6 times). Trying to figure out the same in some other transmissions, here is something that I found (first gear ratio/final gear ratio),
Accord I-4/manual: 4.96
Accord V6/manual: 5.10
TSX/manual: 4.96
BMW 325/manual: 4.23
BMW 330/manual: 5.10
I'm not sure what that means, and if it indicates some engineering limits to 5 or 6 speed transmissions. As I pointed out earlier, to get the engine to rev at 2000 rpm, the sixth gear in TSX would need to be 0.530:1 (instead of 0.659:1). That would mean a spread of 6.16.
That said, I don't see the point of whining about 2500 rpm when the engine doesn't.
The buyers who chose the 6 speed manual are not doing it to save the Earth. Even though the TSX's fuel economy and emissions are in line with many of the 4 cyl family sedans, that is not its goal in the market.
The speed limit is 70-75 out west, and 80 is a normal cruising speed. That 2,000 rpm at 60 becomes about 2,666 at 80 (which is plenty of revs to keep up the power). The standard gearing puts you at 3,300 at 80.
What can I say. Buy the DNX concept. You want to have your cake and eat it, too? Get ready to pay for two cakes.
This car is about compromises. At this price point and with this mission, compromises are required. Tree huggers (like myself) may wish for better fuel economy. Fair enough. But Acura also has to sell to the people who want to be able to lay into the gas pedal and pass someone without down-shifting. Play those two customers against one another and come up with a better solution.
The 2.4 is smooth enough that revving a bit higher isn't going to have a significant impact on NVH. That's the most compelling reason for not revving a luxury car. Fuel economy (though dear to my heart) is a secondary concern. So Acura has a solution that provides power, doesn't hurt luxury, and the only drawback is that fuel economy is only as good as most other economy sedans.
Good point, the TSX has the "beauty under the skin" - smooth under-body clads. Nobody else can run low rpm at 80mph(or even 100mph) w/o being slowed down the wind resistance, TSX can!
"But Acura also has to sell to the people who want to be able to lay into the gas pedal and pass someone without down-shifting."
Re-etch the shift knob into "5+E" & tell people who really want to brace themselves in the "fun-ready" position to leave it in 5th! They can always learn about the E gear after they grow out of high revving or simply when in relaxed mode(I meant mood).
- Mark
BMW 325: 2000 rpm (auto)/2600 rpm (manual)
Honda Accord I-4: 2000 rpm (auto)/ 2300 rpm (manual)
check out the Protege ES....similiar diff between manual/auto
Please, Mazda, stop it! I understand that this has been "helping" me to not travel at very high velocity so I never had a speeding ticket on the fwy.
Having said this, I don't think this model is THAT difficult to find if you want to check some other dealers.
- Mark
It's just the typical pent-up demand at a vehicle's intro. If Acura can maintain the pace, that'll be an accomplishment.
As far as TSX is concerned, I hope that Acura bumps up the production to overcome the under-estimation on sales volume of TSX as they did for TL a year into its redesign (MY2000).
I hope the TSX sells like hotcakes so there'll be plenty in the coffers for a RWD Acura in the near future. Then again, if the TSX sells well, Acura will likely continue with the same old FWD tricks. I can't win.