Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Acura TSX
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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)...
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.
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
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.
But the TSX isn't here yet, and neither is the Mazdaspeed 6.
Besides, Mazda is the king of making driving fun. Unfortunately, that doesn't help this arguement, since it's completely personal preference.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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).
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.
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!
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?
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.
Still, all that said, I'm rather looking forward to hearing more about the TSX, especially any innovations using hybrid technology :-)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
The model below the ITR, the GSR, had unmanaged differentials, incidentally.
Later...AH
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.
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
Later...AH
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.
JDM/Euro Accord has 0.26 without any aero-package.
http://www.world.honda.com/news/2002/4021010.html
there is good info on HIDS and LKAS at the bottom
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.
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).
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
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.