Howdy, Stranger!

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





Acura TSX

15253555758164

Comments

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I wouldn't classify cars based on curb weight either. Get some tunnel vision!

    I'm ONLY comparing FWD versus RWD as was the article.


    This doesn't make sense. It may be just that I don't see a coherence in your arguments. Just make a point and we shall argue on that instead of firing arrows in the dark.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    However, the TSX unfortunately lacks the ability to be as exclusive and "special" as its billing would suggest.

    What were expecting TSX to be? That might help.
  • voochvooch Posts: 92
    Whew, finally done reading...
    My take on exclusive and special:
    "exclusive" = 15k units
    "special" = 27k dollars

    For the $27,000 of specialness, I'd rather more performance (RWD at the very least) and less luxury. Even less safety for performance. They just gotta be different.

    I looked at one over the weekend and it was at $28.5k with 2 options. The interior looked excellent. But for that money, I'd rather the IS300 or G35 base than FWD 4 with dual auto climate control, (complete waste, just a normal auto climate control is a waste much less dual), leather, roof etc. The TSX is a different animal - its bragging rights, as someone mentioned, is in its content, not its performance.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    directed at me. But that was eons ago.

    I don't think the TSX was developed to be a race car. It's a sporty sedan. It only costs $27,000 loaded. What RWD car competes with this car at this as equipped price? NONE!! So forget it!!! Like I said before, gonna buy a 525 or maybe a GS300? Not cheap at all and slower. The 325 isn't cheap when you load it as the TSX nor is the Audi or Saab or G35 Infiniti. Acura is gonna do just fine.
  • merc1merc1 Posts: 6,081
    In reply to an earlier post (you guys post a lot)...I drove the TSX on the streets, generally under 50mph or so. Guess I shouldn't have driven that G35 the same day huh?

    M
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    "also, the auto tranny will not upshift so easily after some miles with an aggressive driver."

    It reminds me. It didn't rev very high in the beginning even when I floored it on an uphill. But minutes later, it did, even on leveled road.

    Is there a "sport" button so it can override the less-aggressive shifting program in the beginning?

    Even so, the 5 gears are pretty far apart for this engine.

    By using a CVT to take advantage of its powerful 6-7k rpm narrow band, it may sound boring, literally.

    VW realized that its 1.8 turbo's constant max-torque lacks excitement due to lack of both engine-noise "tone" change and torque-peak sweet spot. So, for Euro market, they added a thirstier, similar max output but peakier normally-aspirated 5-cyl.

    TSX's flat torque curve lacks the "satisfying" sweet spot of the torque-concentrated area, but at least it won't have any obvious torque steer, either.

    Passat's got anti-torque-steer front geometry, so having an interesting engine won't hurt. But the price to pay is the lack of steering feel especially around straight ahead.

    Too bad the TSX also lacks steering feel despite having strong self-centering action.

    CVT might be even more boring than auto tranny. When Civic HX CVT was first introduced in '96, C&D found the rpm rise almost INVERSELY related to the mph! More like driving a hoovercraft than a car w/ any road holding. Audi's CVT is way less severe, but might not be exciting enough, either.
  • maxhonda99maxhonda99 Posts: 1,289
    venus537,

    I doubt customers are dissappointed but customers aren't exactly knocking down the doors of the Acura dealer in droves. The salesman I had didn't sound like the TSX was doing to great in terms of customer interest. He said they had 6 cars so far. One is a demo and one is for sale. And he said he could get me any of the 3 colors i liked(carbon grey, arctic blue, meteor silver) without NAV system and automatic trans. in about a month. Not just that but he was willing to give me a few hundred dollars off before I even got around to talking numbers with him. That means with negotiation, I could easily get about $500 to $750 off.
  • jay108jay108 Posts: 52
    Title says it all. If its smaller than an Accord, that makes it a Civic in my book. Look for big dealer discounts in just a few months. Price is a big problem for this machine.

    I'm willing to only consider rebuttal from individuals that actually paid their money for the TSX, my guess is there are very few buyers. Don't bother telling me its a 'Euro Accord' thats just marketing hype from Honda. Nothing wrong with the Civic, my secretary has a new one.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Vouch
    I looked at one over the weekend and it was at $28.5k with 2 options. The interior looked excellent. But for that money...

    If you make your point by adding options on MSRP and then comparing to base models of other cars to draw conclusions, you have already made an argument against your own.

    merc
    In reply to an earlier post (you guys post a lot)...I drove the TSX on the streets, generally under 50mph or so.

    That might be the reason why you felt like you did. Character of a sport sedan can not be evaluated without taking out to open roads and at higher speeds.

    maxhonda99
    To my surprise, I have already seen two TSXs on the road. I hope dealers have a tough time moving them off at MSRP, so I can get a deal (target: invoice) when the time comes.
  • maxhonda99maxhonda99 Posts: 1,289
    robertsmx,

    Of course, we as customers, want a nice balance between supply and demand so you get a discount off of MSRP but also so that the car doesn't depreciate at a un-Acura like rate.

    Personally, I wouldn't pay MSRP for the TSX. I would be willing to buy one for about a $1K off of MSRP. IMO, it's just too expensive a car at $27K for a 4-cylinder. The 4-cylinder is plenty peppy, but with only 166lb-ft of torque, it's going to slow down quickly with more than 2 people on board and a stacked trunk.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    I don't think this warrants a rebuttal. Wouldn't know where to begin.
  • jaquinojaquino Posts: 90
    "jay108: Don't bother telling me its a 'Euro Accord' thats just marketing hype from Honda."

    But it is the Euro/Japanese Accord. The Accord we have here is primarily for the North American market (we like bigger cars after all). If you dont believe me, go to Honda's Japan Site at:

    http://www.honda.co.jp/ACCORD/view/

    You cant tell me this Japanese Accord is not the TSX. So no, its not marketing hype at all. All Honda did was bring over the Euro/Japanese Accord, did some engine, interior and suspension tweaks and called it the TSX.

    I however agree for a car with only a four banger, that $27k price is quite steep, most likely due to the fact that it is assembled in Japan. If they move the production over here the price will drop to more reasonable levels.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    maxhonda99,

    IMO, 166 lb.-ft is plenty for a car like TSX. A lot of people wouldn't have raised this issue if the same torque were coming from a V6. My Accord has only 152 lb.-ft on tap, and with its tall gearing and relatively poorer shape of the torque curve (compared to the TSX engine) it is good enough to be competant. But then, to some, it may not be enough. I guess, without actually driving the car to its potential, I shouldn't draw conclusions, but many of us are, and even those who did drive the car, are using 'feel' to draw conclusions, not performance. Some cars can deceive the feel of speed (I know, my Accord does, even at 80 mph while many other cars feel faster at 65-70 mph on the same road).
  • hunter001hunter001 Posts: 851
    Your Accord (2000 4 cylinder ?) with 152 lb-ft on tap, carts along almost 300 lbs less than what this "high-performance" car (TSX) is forced to carry. That will definitely impact things. Your argument would hold water, if the TSX engine is transplanted into your light car.

    As many people stated earlier, the output from the engine is perfectly fine. More than adequate for most cars. In fact, if the same engine is present in the Accord 4-cylinder (with 250lbs less), the Accord would appear much peppier than with its current engine. The TSX is not a light car and weight kills performance. The dimensionally smaller TSX is heavier than the dimensionally larger Honda Accord 4-cylinder and weighs similar to the Honda Accord 6-cylinder that is equipped with an engine putting out 240hp and 212lbs/ft of torque.

    Later...AH
  • maxhonda99maxhonda99 Posts: 1,289
    robertsmx,

    Hunter001 makes a good point. I see your point also, since you're coming from a 4-cylinder accord.
    I on the other currently have a 2K V6 Accord coupe with 195 lb-ft. That makes a difference. The TSX would have about 30less lb-ft of torque and weighs about the same as my Accord. But of course the TSX has a one more gear in the auto compared to my accord.

    The difference between the 2 is why I'm going to go drive the TSX again on a weekend when traffic is lighter. I really want to floor the pedal on the TSX off of some on-ramps onto the highways here to see how well it accelerates. I didn't really get the chance to do that last night due to rush hour traffic.
  • hunter001hunter001 Posts: 851
    Also, just out of curiosity, if Toyota were to bring on the Toyota Corolla (sized similarly to the TSX), with leather, dual-zone climate control, stiffer bushings, stiffer sport suspension, VSA, HIDs, side curtain airbags, 6-speed transmission mated to a revised 200HP version of the Camry 4-cylinder engine, and called it the Lexus CSX, how would we treat such a car ? Especially if they charged 29K for the privilege of owning it ?

    Would all of us keep an open mind, and seriously check out such a vehicle ? I would imagine it would handle really well and have the name of "Lexus" behind it, right ? Just that it is based on a mass market car and "endowed" with FWD but that should not matter if it handles really well, right ?

    Or would we treat it as an econo-car based product, with a lot of features thrown in to make it "really loaded to the gills" but not really worth the price charged, due to its econo-car moorings ?

    Just curious.

    Later...AH
  • stretchsjestretchsje Posts: 699
    ...if they added 400lbs to the Corolla to make it 3300lbs, handling would NOT be $27 good no matter what they did with the suspension, so I refuse to answer your question. That is, unless it was intended to be an isolated, luxury appliance.

    On the other hand, if you took the IS300, put in a small 2 liter engine (IS200 not available in the US), removed some sound insulation (reduce weight, cost), made all its options optional, and sold it for $22k base, I wouldn't even have considered the Mazda6 (or TSX, CSX, whatever).
  • hunter001hunter001 Posts: 851
    You are not keeping an open mind, stretch....

    You simply should not bring the RWD/FWD argument into the picture. A FWD can be made to handle really well, as Honda has amply demonstrated. So you would not need to base this product on the RWD IS series of Lexus, I would argue.

    You are also forgetting the 200 HP (166lbs/ft) tuned version of the Camry 4-cylinder engine and the 6-speed (in this product)....the performance should be worth 29K, especially with the name "Lexus" behind it. Should result in a lot of waiting lists, since it is a "loaded to the gills" Lexus, for a mere 29K, right ?

    Later...AH
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    hunter001
    Your Accord (2000 4 cylinder ?) with 152 lb-ft on tap, carts along almost 300 lbs less than what this "high-performance" car (TSX) is forced to carry.

    1. My Accord (1998 EX-L) has a curb weight of about 3200 lb (not 2900).
    2. My Accord is geared extremely tall and the torque curve is nowhere as good as it is in TSX, especially in the low to mid range.

    Also, just out of curiosity, if Toyota were to bring on the Toyota Corolla (sized similarly to the TSX), with leather, dual-zone climate control...

    That may not be a bad idea if it can hold its own. In fact, sometimes I feel that instead of bringing modified Euro/JDM Accord as TSX, Acura should have used Civic/RSX as the basis for this car. It would had been cheaper and lighter. Expensive features like sport package and xenon headlamps etc. could have been made option to have a starting price tag in low 20s.

    American buyers appear to care less about the car as a whole and focus on number of cylinders (reminds me of vehix.com commercials).
  • jay108jay108 Posts: 52
    I like the package; but that price, ouch.

    I think the Saab 93 is a better deal though I'm not sure about their reliability. These things seem to be much better than the IS300 deal at your Lexus dealer; its inline six takes up cabin space and I think RWD is overated; it could benefit from a turbo-4 or a big 4 like TSX.

    Don't forget losers like Infinity G20, Acura Vigor history could repeat itself with the TSX.
  • 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.)
This discussion has been closed.