Acura TSX

newcar31

"If speed was the priority, why not go with Accord V6/coupe with 6-speed?"

Because it's a two door. The TSX and Mazda6 are four doors. If speed is the main priority and you want a 2 door, you don't buy an Accord, you buy a Mustang GT.

dudleyr

Curb weight of 3,200-3,250 seems awfully heavy for a vehicle that will be smaller than the Acord, which weighs 3,109 in EX trim. I would like to see it under 3,000. Actually I would really like to see it under 2,800 but I know that will never happen.

ickes_mobile

You must mean the M45. Hahaha!!!

No, really, the G35 coupe and sedan are great looking cars. Equally the best design from Japan since the Mazda6 (more hahaha). But, isn't the G just a warmed over Z (yet more hahaha)...

robertsmx

If you must have four doors, and V6 with manual transmission, Mazda6 V6 or Altima V6 may be the only choice. Accord Coupe may lack two doors, but its rear seat may be comparable to Mazda6's.

sunilb

from what I've heard, Honda is only making a very small supply of V6 Coupes w/ 6spd (~ 1000?) ... has anyone else heard this?
I know this limited supply will push the asking price quite high.
Yet another reason why I wouldn't put it in this comparison.

From a price perspective though, the 6 (with a 4cyl./5spd) will be thousands less than the TSX. Which makes the TSX a slightly more upscale choice, but only in price.

Admittedly, this is all conjecture as we don't know for sure what H/A will send this way in the TSX.

hunter001

A heavy-[non-permissible content removed] V6 will be nasty in a Front-wheel-drive vehicle, skewing the front-weight-bias worser than before. Which is why I need Honda to make a 2.8-3.0L DOHC i-VTEC I6/V6 to be mated to a RWD or AWD platform....putting a powerful 6-cyl engine in a FWD configuration is disastrous to say the least....even in case of the TL-s, I would say that the amount of power generated is bordering on the maximum level in a FWD configuration without additional Torsen differential kind of power management.

Anyone who has driven an M3 (3.2L DOHC I6) or even an M5 (V8) will know what I am talking about. You simply cannot put those engines into a front-wheel-drive configuration, since bad torque-steer will make life difficult for its drivers. The engine in the M3 is pure bliss...with the engine never appearing weak anywhere in the power-band. With a 4-banger in the M3, it would be a poor match, even if it generated stratospheric HP levels with poor torque to back it up.

Basically, as a Honda lover, I simply don't want to see one more FWD vehicle cluttering the Acura line-up, whether it is a re-badged Euro-Accord or whatever, especially when it is being "endowed" with a low-end-torque-deficient 4-banger.

If they want to bring over another FWD vehicle, I would say, please don't bother. If they want to bring over something extraordinary, like a high-revving 6-cyl vehicle with a RWD/AWD configuration, with 4-doors and a super-stiff S2000 like chassis, and maintain the price at the 30K level, I would definitely sit up and take notice....otherwise, why bother ?? The market-place is already flooded with too many FWD 4-doors....with the Mazda 6 as a new player.

Later...AH

mariner7

Z is a typical Nissan, just like Corvette is a typical Chevy. MDX is a warmed over Pilot, FX will not be a warmed over Murano. Infiniti is eliminating the I35, might as well, it's just a Max in fancier clothing. And I'm talking general opinion, not yours specifically. Anyway Nissan must be doing something right, it's now more profitable than Honda or Toyota, on a per revenue basis.

robertsmx

"From a price perspective though, the 6 (with a 4cyl./5spd) will be thousands less than the TSX."
If TSX gets 200 HP engine with 6-speed, it will be comparable in price and performance to Mazda6 V6 with 5-speed manual. And both will slaughter Mazda6 with four banger.
Mazda6 in that case will have 20 HP and 20 lb.-ft advantage, but TSX will be lighter and probably gain from the sixth cog.

newcar31

"And both will slaughter Mazda6 with four banger."

But the TSX isn't here yet, and neither is the Mazdaspeed 6.

robertsmx

I guess we all know that. But the fact is, a topic exists, is being discussed, and you and I are participating in it. True?

stretchsje

The TSX, if the above weight is true, won't have a weight advantage over the Mazda6 V6.

Besides, Mazda is the king of making driving fun. Unfortunately, that doesn't help this arguement, since it's completely personal preference.

diploid

Weight isn't everything.

Also note the TSX's drag coefficient of 0.26 vs. the Mazda6's 0.28. For reference, the world's lowest drag coefficient on a mass produced car is 0.25 for the computer mouse shaped Honda Insight.

http://www.honda.co.jp/ACCORD/VIERA/imgs/spcleq_img.gif

I hope we get green as a color option.

diploid

Regarding the V-6, RWD debate: the TSX is meant to be the replacement for the 4-door Integra.

The RSX is a FWD 4-cylinder hatchback, its 4-door variant will obviously follow in the same configuration.

No point in complaining - it's coming over as a 4-cylinder FWD sedan regardless of what's being said about RWD V-6 configurations. Honda has no intentions of producing RWD sedans en masse, and a V-8 engine is definitely out of the question.

robertsmx

C&D put the curb weight of Mazda6 V6/5-speed manual at 3329 lb, about the same as Accord EXV6/5-speed auto. Accord EXV6 Coupe with 6-speed manual is about 3275 lb. I believe, and a fully loaded TSX with 6-speed may top out at 3200-3250 lb including NAVI (which may be the only option, but adds 25-30 lb.)

That may not be a lot of overall weight advantage, but there is not a whole lot of power/torque difference either.

As far as suspension setup goes, if it gets Type-R treatment (spring rates, tires, brakes etc.), the fabulous chassis may deliver a more capable sedan than the Accord Type-R, a highly acclaimed sport sedan in its class in Europe.

I hope TSX is all that Prelude was, with 2 additional doors. Engine specs do sound like something that Prelude could have used had it stayed long enough.

For those interested, here is the published engine dyno of the K24A used in 24-series Japanese Accord (24-series is a combination of three levels, TL: Touring Luxury, T: Touring and S: Sport).

newcar31

I was just pointing out that the performance version of the 6 isn't even here yet. You're comparing Acura's upcoming sporty 4 door to Mazda's bottom level 4cyl that costs thousands less. Since we're talking about future cars, wait till the Mazdaspeed 6 gets here, the TSX won't "slaughter" that.

ickes_mobile

hasn't been confirmed either. Such a car is rumored to have 250hp. via IMA technolgy. It will be interesting shopping in the years ahead...

robertsmx

You're comparing Acura's upcoming sporty 4 door to Mazda's bottom level 4cyl that costs thousands less.
I don't think you got the point. I was simply responding to this...
sunlib: "From a price perspective though, the 6 (with a 4cyl./5spd) will be thousands less than the TSX. Which makes the TSX a slightly more upscale choice, but only in price."

Makes sense now?

robertsmx

I really hope that is the car Euro magazines are guessing on, and that is the car Tom Elliot meant when he brought up that Acura is going to get a high performance IMA model soon.

240-250 HP, 260-280 lb.-ft (torque peak would arrive under 2000 rpm), AWD, Type-R like sport package could make TSX Type-R an interesting sport sedan in about $30K price class. This would be the exact drivetrain Honda showcased in Acura RDX prototype. It was mated to 6-speed sequential transmission also (probably the same transmission as the 300 HP Accord Coupe at SEMA).

newcar31

"240-250 HP, 260-280 lb.-ft (torque peak would arrive under 2000 rpm)"

Those numbers are very un-honda like. More torque than HP? I've heard this car is going to be powered by a naturally aspirated 4 cyl. If so, the torque numbers are WAY off.

ickes_mobile

comes from two electric motors on the rear wheels, thus the increase without really changing the gas engine...

robertsmx

Hmmm, you also believe in more torque than power theories? Well, this wouldn't be the first time for Honda, would it? In most cases however, their torque curves are broad enough to get more horsepower from the engine.

But more importantly, we're talking about K24A mated to IMA system. It would still be a naturally aspirated motor, but additional motivation comes from electric motors. And electric motors do something that gasoline motors don't... exceptional torque output at low rpm.

K24A+IMA (integrated motor assist) drivetrain was showcased last year in Acura RDX concept, pumping 250 HP delivered via a 6-speed clutchless manual. 200 of the 250 horses came from the K24A powering the front wheels, and the rest of the 50 horses from two small 25 hp electric motors mounted on the rear wheels. 260-280 lb.-ft is just my guess knowing the way electric motors produce power. This should be the next logical step for Honda in promoting their gasoline-electric hybrid technology. And quite possibly, it may be!

newcar31

That explains a whole lot.

BTW, I believe the K24 was the first Honda engine to have more torque than hp. That's the same engine that the new CR-V has right?

stretchsje

The Mazda6 will almost certainly offer more thrills for your dollar, plus has a large trunk and the option of a hatch. Even disregarding price, I doubt the TSX would be more fun to drive. Look at the Miata- underpowered, but way fun. The 6 also has an extremely rigid, well-tuned chassis, which reviews have said to be comparable (though unequal) to the 3 series, and surpassing the A4 and 3.2TL.

I'm guessing you'd rather buy a car based on paper specs though. So...

For $26k, especially since you are so quick to point out that the TSX is a smaller car, you'd be better of with Mazda's RX-8, debuting around the same time. .94g's on the skidpad, 50/50 weight distribution, 250hp, 6spd, and that awesome rotary sound.

And, for the record, a Mazda 6s weights 3243lbs, 6i 3042lbs.

ickes_mobile

to find out what the actual price, size and performance numbers of BOTH cars are before reaching to conclusions. At this point, such a comparision is hardly moot.

stretchsje

The 6 is a driver's car, plain and simple. For what the car is (roomy, versatile storage), you won't get more thrills without sacrificing practicality. The RSX-S is faster for the same price, but that doesn't matter, since it is a different size segment. Since you're so caught up in performance rather than size (and judging by your Type-R references), compare to a performance car, such as the RX-8 or AWD MazdaSpeed 6.

Still, all that said, I'm rather looking forward to hearing more about the TSX, especially any innovations using hybrid technology :-)

ickes_mobile

Comparing a TSX with a RX-8 makes no sense given the different purpose of each car. I wouldn't compare the 6 to the RX-8, would you? I don't get how is a TSX not a "drivers" car, when the Mazda6 is? They are both essentailly sporty family sedans. Its a legitimate comparision between the TSX and Mazda6, (or Passat and A4 for that matter) and I don't know why you'd dismiss it.

They both appear to be about the same size, features, etc., and in the lighter, better balanced 4cyl. guise, the TSX likely has more HP via a possible 6-speed transmission. Maybe it will cost more, but it will also probably have more features and, again, more horsepower compared to a 6i.

Obviously, the 6s will have more HP, but with certain tradeoffs such as greater weight to disrupt the balance and lower gas mileage. Feature for feature, my bet is the TSX and Mazda6 end up being very competitively priced. Add to that Honda/Acura's better resale value vs. any lower up-front price or likely incentives on the Mazda6. Mazda does have a potential niche advantage with the hatch and wagon versons of their car. Honda could of course match the wagon.

stretchsje

You're right, I shouldn't dismiss it. I guess I'm more or less saying not to get carried away with paper specs and type-r variations.

Think of the Mazda Protege, which looks totally average on paper, but is a blast to drive. The 6 is in a similar situation- on paper it doesn't stand out, but the driving experience does. So, I guess I'm saying not to dismiss the 6 because it's underpowered or too heavy. It delivers on the driving experience.

But yes, believe me, if the 6 weren't already pushing my price limit, I'd definately be cross-shopping with the RX-8. It seats 4 adults comfortably too!

newcar31

About the electric motor idea.....

With today's technology, the TSX would be a tank with the hybrid system you speak of. Not only would you have the weight of the electric motors, but you would also have the weight of extra batteries and other electrical doo dads. The technology needs to get better before we will start to see "sport-sedan" hybrids.

robertsmx

I believe the K24 was the first Honda engine to have more torque than hp. That's the same engine that the new CR-V has right?
Yes. K24A has several variations. It debuted with 2002 CRV. Accord (and Element) get it too, but they have slightly different tuning of the engine compared to CRV. Japanese Accord gets the more advanced version. The following are the current outputs,
CRV:
160 HP @ 6000 rpm, 162 lb.-ft @ 3600 rpm

Accord & Element:
160 HP @ 5500 rpm, 161 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm

Japanese Accord:
190 HP @ 6800 rpm, 168 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm (AWD, wagon only)
200 HP @ 6800 rpm, 172 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm (FWD, sedan/wagon only)

K24A is far from being the first Honda engine to have "more torque than hp". As a matter of fact, except for the V6, Accord has never had "more hp than torque". Odyssey/Pilot, MDX, RL are other current engines, and I believe the first engine on CRV (126 HP/134 lb.-ft?) also fit the definition. Honda engines, especially with VTEC, tend to have good torque output at (atleast) upper mid-range as well, so they tend to have "more hp than torque". For example, if K24A in American Accord made just 2 lb.-ft more torque at 5500 rpm than it does now, it would have 162 HP/161 lb.-ft rating.
But in any case, "more hp than torque" or vice versa is really an invalid statement, I guess you know that already.

robertsmx

You do have a point about additional weight that would come from electric motors. Now there is a major difference between Honda and Toyota hybrid systems. Honda has developed and is using small electric motors while Toyota's electric motors are large and heavy. This is the reason Prius weighs about 600 lb. more than Echo, a comparable car. OTOH, Civic Hybrid weighs within 50 lb. of a comparably equipped conventional Civic.
And then there is the battery pack issue. Honda may have a solution to eliminate battery pack altogether! In FCX (fuel cell vehicle), Honda is using an ultra-capacitor to store energy which is apparently more efficient and way lighter than a comparable battery pack.
Now, let us assume that an IMA system adds 200-250 lb. to the curb weight of the car. So would a conventional AWD system! The difference, the IMA would also generate power, a conventional AWD system, saps power. May be, TSX "hybrid" could weigh about 3500 lb. with all the frills, but an Audi A4, a car of comparable size, weighs over 3600 lb. with Quattro too! I'm really curious to see where Honda goes with its IMA technology next. I want to see TSX get it.

diploid

I think at this point, the next RL or NSX are true contenders for IMA to boost performance. I doubt it'll be the TSX.

hunter001

The Audi Quattro is a completely mechanical Torque-sensing AWD system, which operates hand-in-hand with the stability control system. This ensures that even if one wheel has traction, the car will move. In normal conditions it splits power 50/50 front/rear. It can transfer upto 100 percent of the power to either axle, if traction conditions demand that. Due to its mechanical nature, it is heavy, but its torque-sensing characteristic makes it super-effective.

A different beast from the VTM-4 of Honda, which drives in most conditions with 90% of the power to the front wheels (like a FWD car) with a little dribble of power going to the rear wheels (10%). It can transfer upto 50% of the power to the rear wheels if traction conditions demand that. Not as effective as the Audi Quattro, even though both of them are "AWD systems". A stability control system (or power managed differentials in the front/rear along with the VTM-4 center diff), would have ensured better effectiveness. But most driving on public roads will not bring out its weaknesses.

The VTM-4 is similar to the AWD employed by most Subaru Automatic transmission equipped vehicles, except the WRX Automatic and the VDC Outback Automatic. The WRX Automatic (and VDC Outback Automatic), employs a Rally-derived Electronically controlled Dual-Planetary gear Torque-biasing Center differential working along with Electro-mechanical transfer clutches. In non-slip conditions, it drives with a 45/55 front/rear split (36/64 in Japan market Subarus). Very very effective and is Proactive and can transfer upto 90% of the power to either axle. Even though the Quattro reacts blindingly fast, it is still a reactive system and reacts to slippage, unlike the Automatic WRX that proactively distributes power through terrain sensors and acts (not reacts) before the onset of slippage.

The manual WRX (along with all other manual Subarus) employs a much cheaper system (found in the Toyota RAV4/Honda CRV) etc., that employs a Viscous Coupling (Coupling filled with Viscous fluid and metal plates) in the center differential. It is a completely reactive system. But it drives with 50/50 front/rear power split in non-slip conditions, unlike cars like the CRV etc that are essentially FWD vehicles with rear-ward transfer capability after the onset of slippage.

Not everything is the same in the AWD world, is it ??

Later...AH

robertsmx

But VTM-4 now increased the rear wheel torque delivery by 30%, so now it could deliver upto 80% to the rear wheels. 2003 MDX received this version along with stability control (VSA. It is a pro-active system, distribution depends on throttle usage even without slippage.

VTM-4, being an electronically controlled system, is also more flexible. It could be modified for whatever 'permanent' torque split is required, but powering all wheels at all times hurts fuel mileage and will cause more wear (increased maintenance). But VTM-4's greatest strength is its bulk and weight. Still, it must be adding no less than 150 lb.

IMA based AWD system would be very similar, and it works with stability control (VSA) as well (Acura DNX), which is available with JDM/Euro Accord. And ATTS too.

Traction is likely to be lost during acceleration (side slip will be addressed by VSA anyway) that is when AWD becomes more effective. And with ATTS, one of the major problems of high powered FWD vehicles can be addressed... torque steer.

These are the reasons for me to think that IMA based AWD is going to be very effective. Whether it is going to be RL, DNX, TL or TSX, remains to be seen. I hope TSX gets it, while RL could use it or the VTM-4 by using the drivetrain directly off MDX.

mariner7

CAR regarded old ITR as best fwd handler ever, and raves about new ITR. Safe to say Honda can match anything from Mazda in either chassis or engine. Whether it chooses to send TSX-R to match MazSpeed 6 is another story! I saw pic of TSX wagon, its real sharp looking. I hope they send it here, but Honda wants us to buy SUV's and fatten its bank accounts.

hunter001

If the MDX received VSA, then it should be capable of a lot more than I thought. Without VSA and unmanaged differentials (as it was earlier), it was not as capable. Instead of VSA along with unmanaged differentials, I would still have preferred Torsen front/rear differentials, but that would add to the cost by a lot. Torsen differentials will permit the power to reach the ground, as opposed to the VSA braking individual ends to apportion power (like the Mercedes M-class does).

Also, another fallacy that is making the rounds is that permanent AWD/4WD hurts fuel economy. That was applicable to old shift-on-the-fly 4WD systems...not to permanent 4WD systems.

For example, the Auto-WRX with full-time power distribution on all 4 ends (45/55 front/rear split in non-slip conditions) has the same fuel-economy as the other Automatic Subarus that have a 90/10 split. It is just that the rear axle needs to be a lot more robust than the 90/10 splitters, since it has to be engineered to take, over 50% of the power all the time.

Later...AH

hunter001

The ITR has a Torsen (Torque sensing) front differential, which is what differentiates it from a lot of other cars. Quite a few cars equipped with a front LSD, have viscous LSD as opposed to the Torsen employed by the Integra Type-R. The Torsen enables the Type-R to outhandle pretty much any other FWD vehicle, since it seamlessly allows the power to reach the ground and both front wheels are driven as opposed to the "peg-leg" nature of other FWD vehicles without a LSD.

The model below the ITR, the GSR, had unmanaged differentials, incidentally.

Later...AH

seaf

It seems pretty impressive that the TSX could have a coefficient of drag of 0.26 when most sedans in its class are 0.29 and above. This seems to be in the league of sports cars. But hard to believe since it's a relatively boxy 4door. What was their secret? flush undercarriage? windtunnel tests and tunning? Or is it a case of false advertising?

newcar31

"CAR regarded old ITR as best fwd handler ever, and raves about new ITR."

Sport Compact Car says the new Mazdaspeed Protege is the best handling FWD car in the world right now, topping the previous benchmark Integra Type-R.

hunter001

I believe the Infiniti G35 sedans (pretty chunky one) also has a low Coeff of drag (0.26 ?).

The Lexus LS430 also has a Honda Insight matching 0.25 coeff of drag. That is also a pretty boxy looking one.

It is all in the way the air hitting the car is managed, both above and below the car. A flat undercarriage is definitely helpful. A lot of windtunnel testing is what enables the Automakers to make the adjustments needed for a low coeff of drag.

Later...AH

hunter001

I would not be surprised if the Mazda employs a Helical/Torsen LSD in the front. Does it have one ?

Later...AH

newcar31

it has a LSD.

robertsmx

Acura CL Type-S uses helical LSD, and apparently it works extremely well. C&D reviewers thought CL-S/6-speed was the best handling FWD car available with non-existent torque-steer and excellent grip from 'long-life' tires. Perhaps TSX could benefit from it too.

diploid

Ahh...but how much does the Lexus cost?

The slippery drag coeffcient of 0.25 is achieved via a special suspension enhancement in the Premium package for the LS430. The regular version has 0.26. Still very impressive for such a boxy (and heavy) car.

robertsmx

LS430 has 0.26, with the auto-level suspension option, the Cd can drop to 0.25.

JDM/Euro Accord has 0.26 without any aero-package.

jjman

for alot of info on tsx go to this link

http://www.world.honda.com/news/2002/4021010.html

there is good info on HIDS and LKAS at the bottom

ickes_mobile

that the Euro/JDM Accord gets split folding rear seats. Wonder why we don't in the NA Accord. Anyone with a child seat would understand this...

dudleyr

That wagon is really growing on me. Sure hope it comes over too, and not with just an automatic tranny. 6 speed manual please (with a nice relaxed 6th gear for our 75 mph speed limit and 80 mph highway driving - none of this cramming 6 gears into the same range as 5 nonsense just to take a tenth or two off of 0-60) Practical, efficient, and fun - yummy.

Of course a wagon would have to have folding seats! Don't know why Honda does not split the rear seat in the sedan - really limits usefullness.

diploid

I don't think the wagon will ever grow on me.

On another note, the Japanese Accord (our TSX) has won Japan's car of the year award. The article is linked in vtec, but I think the site is down again (loading VERY slow today).

robertsmx

1. Honda Accord - 348 votes
2. Nissan Fairlady Z - 321 votes
3. Mazda Atenza (Mazda 6) - 217 votes
4. New Mini (BMW) - 182 votes
5. Mercedes Benz E-class - 117 votes
6. Volkswagen Polo - 100 votes
7. Daihatsu Copen - 71 votes
8. Toyota Caldina - 48 votes
9. Opel Vectra - 41 votes
10. Range Rover - 30 votes

radocha

I think that was good news for us 'US'
With that prestige recognition, slow saturation of European markets, the battle for market share in NA will keep on going and what better way for Honda to gain on it then to introduce a proven product.
Having lived in Europe for many years I can say that car manufacturers' competition has never been more fierce. Here I was 2 months ago test-driving acclaimed Mazda 6 (2.0L) only to hear that Honda is launching a new Accord (and believe me Accords in Europe are not nearly as popular as in NA) Hopefully we will have it here soon.
As for pricing, I think they will have to fit it between 24-28K/30K loaded type 'R' (and I considered few factors...too much to talk about, but I did my share of work in planning)
Obviously this price would mean some sacrifice on equipment but it is nothing unusual in this market...I think some high-end features would be optioned out.
Engines? I see no difference in the trend of bringing more torquy units which would mean keeping 2.4L (which now ranges from 160-200PS across all markets) but as we all want they need to tweak it for 'R/S' version, although I would have no problem with a screaming 2.0L at 220PS either.
I only hope I will have a chance to drive it in Feb when I spend some time overseas. I am in no rush, though, cause I can't drive and that means buy a car in US for another 9 months anyway...so I will just keep waiting for that TSX.