Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Acura TSX

18081838586246

Comments

  • stretchsjestretchsje Posts: 699
    What is the heaviest Honda vehicle you believe "handles really well?"

    In my opinion, it's about 400lbs shy of the TSX, and 600lbs shy of the TL-S. That's what I meant in my post.

    Toyota/Lexus couldn't build a performance car based on the Corolla if they added weight. If they managed to keep the car to 2800-2900lbs, that's an entirely different story.
  • stretchsjestretchsje Posts: 699
    ...that mid-size cars should be based on an advanced, sporty chassis "detuned" to be family haulers rather than developing a family hauler chassis and attempting to make it worthwhile in a sporty car. It just doesn't work.

    Honda USED to use this philosophy, at least with suspensions- the Civic had double wishbones all around from the Integra! Now the RSX is held back by the Civic's strut setup.

    The TSX is based on the Accord platform. In my dream world, the TSX would get a TRUE sport-tuned chassis (RWD or AWD, transversely mounted engine, good weight distribution), and the Accord would be based on that chassis in the following revision.

    OK, probably not the Accord. That's not a performance vehicle; it doesn't need either RWD or AWD. Only performance vehicles do, and that's what Acura claims to make. The TSX should share a chassis with the Accord Coupe, not the appliance-like Sedan. The Accord coupe shouldn't be called the Accord coupe, either, it should be called the Prelude, based on the TSX chassis, which is RWD/AWD.

    This way the Acura 4-dr, luxury-sport TSX is always more advanced than the less refined Honda Prelude, but technology trickles down to the Prelude with every revision.

    That's my dream world, and Honda couldn't be further from it.
  • hunter001hunter001 Posts: 851
    1. My Accord (1998 EX-L) has a curb weight of about 3200 lb (not 2900).

    Just checked Edmunds and it lists the weight of the 1998 Accord EX 4-cylinder as 3020lbs (approximately 200lbs less than the figure you quoted). Are we playing with these numbers to make our points stick ?? The current 4-cylinder Accord EX (which is heavier than the previous generation) with Leather, weighs around 3109lbs.

    Later...AH
  • hunter001hunter001 Posts: 851
    The weight of the 1998 Honda Accord LX (4-cylinder), listed by Edmunds is 2987lbs.

    The weight of the 1998 Honda Accord DX is 2888lbs.

    Later...AH
  • stretchsjestretchsje Posts: 699
    The Integra coupe was roughly 2650lbs; the sedan was 2750lbs.

    The TSX replaced the latter at about 3300lbs, give or take depending on your transmission choice.

    This is EXACTLY why those expecting a great-handling Honda vehicle will not get that.
  • nicdmxnicdmx Posts: 35
    No rebuttal needed? Your post isn't needed since it seems to me you really haven't even seen the car in person.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    stretchsje
    What is the heaviest Honda vehicle you believe "handles really well?"

    The best handling Hondas,
    European Accord Type-R (about 3050 lb.): This car used the H22A (2157 cc/I-4) from Prelude, tuned to produce 210 HP/158 lb.-ft mated to only 5-speed manual transmission.
    JDM Accord Euro-R (about 3050 lb.): This car uses K20A (1998 cc/I-4) also used as is in the new Integra Type-R for 220 HP/152 lb.-ft and mated to only 6-speed manual transmission.

    These two are considered excellent track cars for 10/10 driving. To a lesser extent,
    Acura TL-S (3525 lb. to 3552 lb.) and Acura CL-S (3485 lb. to 3525 lb.) handle really well. CL-S w/6-speed was praised by C&D for its neutral handling at the limit, excellent for 9/10 driving requirements.

    But hey, if you don't believe TSX is a good handler, a sport sedan, forget it! Theories aren't going to change anything.

    mid-size cars should be based on an advanced, sporty chassis "detuned" to be family haulers rather than developing a family hauler chassis and attempting to make it worthwhile in a sporty car. It just doesn't work.
    What criteria do you use to draw conclusions? Is it based on the first car that is launched using a platform? Or is it based on some inside revelation that most of us don't know about?

    Accord is using a global midsize platform that was probably designed to handle 300 horses or more and detuned for use in cheaper mainstream offerings, besides high performance variants? The layout certainly suggests that. Can you prove it otherwise?

    Honda USED to use this philosophy, at least with suspensions- the Civic had double wishbones all around from the Integra! Now the RSX is held back by the Civic's strut setup.

    Don't go into a discussion you can't finish. This has been attempted just too many times. You won't be able to prove that choice of MacPherson Struts hinders development of sporty cars. And how exactly did you figure that RSX is using Civic setup and not the other way around? Elaborate.

    hunter001
    Edmund's number on curb weight sound inaccurate (too low). Unfortunately, 98-02 Accord specs are no longer available from Honda, and if I remember is correctly, Accord EX-L/auto (my car) had a curb weight of 3186 lb (Edmunds lists 3166 lb. for 2003), LXV6 was 3285 lb. and EXV6 was 3329 lb. Heck, Prelude w/auto was about 3050 lb (with manual, just a shade under 3000 lb. non Type-SH).

    Honda's website lists Accord LX at 3113 lb., EX at 3166 lb., LXV6 at 3309 lb. and EXV6 at 3360 lb.

    That said, note the weight differential between EX and EXV6 models. The V6 appears to add about 200 lb. to the curb weight of the car.
  • Honda needs to develop one rear drive platform for all its applications.
    1. 4-door sedan IS300/330i fighter (TSX replacement)
    2. 2-door version of this car to go up against 330Ci (CL replacement)
    3. 2-door 2+2 version, lighter weight, lower body for 350Z/RX8 fighter (new Prelude)
    4. even lighter, basic interior 2-seater roadster (S2000 replacement)
    5. long wheelbase version of the 4-door for 5-Series/GS fighter (TL replacement).

    This is pretty much what BMW does with its 3-Series (coupe, sedan, convt, Z4, X3). I can understand the initial development costs of creating this all-new platform, but I think the cost would be offset by the fact you can share this platform across 5 vehicles (maybe even 6 with a Infiniti FX-type crossover)

    And, the next generation 3.0-liter V6 with i-vtec would be lighter, maybe not as light as the 2.4-liter engine in the TSX now but lighter than it is in the Accord or the 3.2-liter in the TL/CL.

    If Honda can engineer a car with front-wheel drive that handles like the TSX or Prelude, imagine what it can do with a rear-wheel drive platform. C'mon Honda.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    The Integra coupe was roughly 2650lbs; the sedan was 2750lbs.

    Integra was replaced by Integra (FYI, called RSX in some markets). Curb weight, 2694 lb. (RSX/5-speed manual) to 2767 lb. (RSX Type-S/6-speed manual or RSX/5-speed auto). I believe 1999 Integra GS-R had a curb weight of 2743 lb (I can confirm this later since I have the brochure).

    The TSX replaced the latter at about 3300lbs, give or take depending on your transmission choice.

    Where do you get the idea that TSX replaced Integra? And hey, 3300 lb. (give or take a few pounds) is the same curb weight as the feather light (and smaller) BMW 325.
  • stretchsjestretchsje Posts: 699
    Where do you get the idea that TSX replaced Integra? And hey, 3300 lb. (give or take a few pounds) is the same curb weight as the feather light (and smaller) BMW 325.

    Which takes about 160lbs of that, lifts them from the front axle, and moves it to the rear. Plus, almost all the weight is between the axles rather than over or in front of the axle.

    Same weight, but much better controlled in a RWD vehicle. That's the whole point. A FWD car needs to be lighter than a RWD car to have the same limits at the front axle. A FWD car would have to be (guessing here) 300lbs lighter to have the same cornering limits as an otherwise similarly designed RWD car. And even then, you can't use throttle to steer the car, so the driving experience isn't as versatile. (I won't make the claim that it's better, because that isn't one I want to dive into- yet.)
  • markjennmarkjenn Posts: 1,142
    Think about that one for a minute. One car platform can't possibly span this range of cars. Nissan is probably going the furthest in this regard by having their FM platform span the 350Z to the G35, but the 350Z is a long ways from an S2000 and the G35 is a long ways from a 5-series competitor.

    I'd like to see Honda take a run at a RWD sports-sedan too, but if they want to have RWD cover everything from a lightweight sports car to a mid-size luxury cruisers, they're probably going to have to convert three platforms over to RWD, something that is prohibitively expensive.

    - Mark
  • sunilbsunilb Posts: 407
    with all of this discussion about weight and power, etc. I just wonder if most of the people complaining would be better suited to the upcoming RX-8--- it's got RWD, 4 doors (sort-of), better weight distribution, lighter, the luxury options are options, and there is price overlap (I believe you will be able to get one for $25K - $32K).

    To me, it seems like many of the current concerns with the TSX on this board would be addressed with this vehicle.
  • good point markjenn
    that is stretching it a bit

    Without the 5-series competitor it might work with the other 4 platforms. Then at that size and price point, maybe Acura's upcoming all-wheel drive RL might work well.
  • markjennmarkjenn Posts: 1,142
    I agree with sunib. The RX-8 is remarkably light for its capabilities.

    If you go down the list of 4-seaters which compete with the TSX, they are generally close to or heavier than the TSX. 3200-3700 lbs is just what it takes these days to build a rigid, luxurious, safety-equipped sports sedan. The TSX is actually at the low-end of the range. Heck, the A4 is nearly 3800 lbs, the BMW 3400, and the IS is 3400. The RX-8 is a noteable exception, provided you are willing to accept its abbreviated doors as a substitute for a true sedan.

    I'll go a step further. Those of you who want a V6 TSX really should take a long look at the Mazda 6s. It's got the 220-hp/195-ft-lb V6, weighs about what a TSX V6 would weigh, probably handles about like a TSX V6 would handle, has a MSRP of about $25.5K fully-loaded, and can be bargained into the $23K range, thus addressing the value concern. (If you have graduated from college recently, you can get another $500 off your best deal.) Fit/finish is perhaps down a notch, but not by much. Reliability is likely to be as good, especially since its been in production longer. About the only thing I see that is a significant issue is the lack of nav, but that should be alleviated in six-months.

    If you want a more powerful TSX, or a lighter TSX, you might want to head on down to the Mazda dealer folks. They have your cars!

    - Mark
  • jrct9454jrct9454 Posts: 2,367
    ...there are people here with far too much time on their hands.

    Again, thanks for the contributions of people who have actually driven the car...
  • stretchsjestretchsje Posts: 699
    ...is a car I can't wait to drive, and soon own if my current car ends up reselling high.

    Now THAT is a car that has its priorities straight, and walks the walk rather than talking the talk.

    Though, the RX-8 discussion on this board aren't nearly as fun :)
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    was specifically called out for having to do high rpm clutch dumps to get real performance out of.
  • stretchsjestretchsje Posts: 699
    Gee: "was specifically called out for having to do high rpm clutch dumps to get real performance out of."

    No, not performance. 0-60 acceleration. Performance-wise, the RX-8 was picked as the overall winner against the G35coupe. The whole beauty of the RX-8 is that the dang thing corners so well, you won't have to re-accellerate.
  • ameen6ameen6 Posts: 16
    I own a fully loaded Mazda 6 with a 5spd MT, such as the one you speak of in your post. I have had it for about 3 months now and I love it. For the price ($23,500) I think this is a wonderful sport sedan.

    In your post you said:

    "Those of you who want a V6 TSX really should take a long look at the Mazda 6s. It's got the 220-hp/195-ft-lb V6, weighs about what a TSX V6 would weigh"

    A Mazda6 V6 weighs 3241 lbs, that’s only 11 lbs heavier than the 3230 lb TSX. The Mazda6 4 cylinder weighs about 3050 lbs.

    Another advantage the Mazda6 has over the TSX is size. @91 cubic ft of interior volume, the TSX is about as roomy as a Honda Civic. @96 cubic feet the Mazda6 is considerably roomier, especially in the back. I'm puzzled about the TSX excessive weight. Compared to the Mazda6 it has 20 less HP, 26 less lb\ft of torque, 5 less cubic ft of interior volume, yet it has no weight advantage. Also don't forget the Mazda6 does not require premium fuel such as the TSX does.

    Although, I have not driven a TSX (only sat in one) I would venture to say that it's biggest advantage over the Mazda6 is going to be drive quality, i.e. crisper shifter, less road noise and wind noise and a more refined engine. One of my complaints of the Mazda6 is excessive road and engine noise. I think the V6 could be more refined. And I agree, the fit and finish of the TSX is a notch above that of the Mazda6.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Stretchsje
    Which takes about 160lbs of that, lifts them from the front axle, and moves it to the rear...

    If it is about chassis dynamics, the chassis setup is supposed to handle it, just like you would see in an RSX Type-S or Integra Type-R or whatever.
    If it is about being underpowered, well, believe me, with 50-50 split, the engine isn't carrying half of the car.

    The whole beauty of the RX-8 is that the dang thing corners so well, you won't have to re-accellerate.
    Hehe, kinda like Integra Type-R! C&D once pitted three cars from Speed World Challenge on a track to discover that the lighter and more agile ITR was carrying greater speeds around the corners than the more powerful (216 HP versus 435-455 HP) cars (Corvette C5 and Saleen). It was getting beaten in the straights though.

    markjenn
    I have long wished that Honda would develop a RWD platform, if not for anything but, to demonstrate the raw performance that they did with launch of S2000 in 1999, or with NSX in 1989 and please the crowd that drives their cars at 10/10 all day.

    You're right, just one platform could address it, but as a company, Honda may not have an interest in expanding or coming up with a new facility with hope that the returns will be justified. We can talk about it all day, but in the end it is a business decision. If they feel the need, I am sure they will do it.

    I see AWD as a good alternative to address the issue, not unlike Audi's stand. For example, Acura could offer FWD TL with 260 HP for $30-32K, and then provide a Type-S model with AWD and 300 HP for $34-36, they would have covered both grounds and then some (without having to alienate some snow belt buyers who may not consider RWD cars).
Sign In or Register to comment.