Acura TSX

scooter71

Interesting the differing opinions on the contrast look of the interior (beige, plastic wood, black). Reminds me of the slick interiors being turned out by Alfa, Renault, Audi, etc. Monotone interiors remind me of ubiquitous $20k Japanese family sedans. Just my thought

diploid

Here's a better pic of the interior. The plood doesn't look so "orangey" in this pic, and notice the purple(?) illuminated gauges.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G30F219F2

I don't think it approaches VW levels yet (more chrome accents here and there might do it), but it's a good looking interior nonetheless.

venus537

i noticed the cup holders are covered. it seems like honda went out of their way to make sure people don't confuse this car's interior with the accord's interior. to the car's decrement IMO.

1wiseguy

Now that it's officially going to be released, I recommend we have a new TSX thread instead of housing this under "Acura-related". May get more people visiting/posting.

ickes_mobile

looks tight, like a Volvo S60 or Saab 9-3:

www.vtec.net/pics/04/tsx/04tsx_naias-013.jpg

pat

I know what you mean, but that is dependent on the TSX showing up in the model choices in the database. It's not there yet.

When it is there, I'll categorize this discussion as "Acura TSX" rather than just Acura like it is now.

We won't need a separate thread, just the category change.

heisnstein

Auto shows usually jam front seats all the way back, which makes the rear look very small. Having said that, rear space in the TSX does tend to the small side. Its rear space is dead last when compared to the Mazda6, the Saab 9-3, and the Audi A4, and exceeds only the A4 if you account for the A4's tight front legroom. To be fair, rear hip room is pretty good at 54.4 inches and the real world difference between the TSX and the other models mentioned in legroom may not be significant.

But if the pricing reports are true, it looks like Acura will attempt instead to line the TSX up against the G35, I300 and the BMW 325. This would be a big mistake for Acura, first of all because all of those models are rear wheel drive and only the Bimmer isn't a six banger. I think Acura would be much better served by aiming at the first set of competitors and continuing its tradition of providing competition-busting value by pricing the TSX at or below $25K.

jjpcat

Harry: the 2.5L engine in 325 is a 6-cylinder engine.

I really don't know what's in Honda's mind. They said they would be building 15000 TSX for the US each year. Now Acura dealers would have another model they can charge north of MSRP.

In general, I am pleased with its style, although I agree with those people who don't care much about the black dash board. The perforated leather reminds me of IS300 which doesn't sell well.

Any info on its brake? Honda/Acura has always been losing miserably in this department against its competitors. If TSX is competiing with G35/IS300/325, I wish it could do 70-0 at around 170ft, or 60-0 at around 120ft.

sunilb

I'm pretty much that for $25-$30K, Acura has screwed up the pricing on this vehicle.
[The current TL is in the $27-$32K range (although, rumors have the TL going up in price for the new '04 model).]

Everything else in this price range is larger and has a 6cylinder. Some even have RWD.

In this segment, I value room and sporty handling (and a manual transmission!), so while RWD isn't necessary it can be nice.

Is Honda/Acura blind when it comes to sporty competition? Although, it's a different conversation they seemed to do a similar pricing mistake with the Civic SI (admittedly, the styling was more questionable than this model).

I really wanted the slick-shifting Honda transmission, but I don't think it's worth the price of admission (ie, I can save some $$ and get the Mazda6, or I can spend a few more dollars and get a RWD, 6cyl. car with more room!).

Acura: what's up with the trunk hinges??

If they had priced this lower, I wouldn't be so critical but as it is, it seems to want to play in a field that it may not compete in (at least in my eyes).

diploid

I thought it was going to max out at 25K...now they're charging 25-30K? That's too much for the car.

1500/year...I don't know what to say.

robertsmx

Once again, rear seat room will depend on how the front seat is adjusted. Said that, don't expect TSX to be as large on the inside as Accord, because it is a smaller car to begin with. Said that, it should be adequate and I'm curious to see this vehicle in person.

Pricing should be $25-27K, with NAV being the only option. It is extremely well loaded for the price, considering that for $26K and above, the competition doesn't offer much, unless they get past $30K mark. With features like,
Dual Zone Climate Control
Side airbags
Curtain Airbags
ABS/EBD
Stability Control (VSA)
HID
17" rims
360 Watt 8-speaker audio system
In-dash CD changer
Heated Leather seats etc. etc.

$25K wouldn't be too high. Some people might have reservations about the engine not being a V6, but 200 HP and reasonably good torque should be adequate for spirited driving, especially with the 6-speed. And if the 6-speed ratios are shared with Acura RSX-S, it will feel torquier than the numbers suggest. It shouldn't weigh more than 3200 lb. either.

I doubt the rubber would be any more serious than what CL-S/TL-S and Accord Coupe w/6-speed offer though as they are the same size (P215/50/R17) and may be the same tire as well (Michelin Pilot XGT-4). The JDM Type-S and the Euro-R are wear lower profile (P215/45/R17) and possibly much more stickier rubber.

I will be surprised if Acura limited sales to only 15K per year in the USA. They started with 40K TL/year in 1999, only to realize that it soon developed backlogs and the production was increased to 60K units. 25-30K would be my guess.

Any info on its brake? Honda/Acura has always been losing miserably in this department against its competitors.
Braking distance on most Hondas (except hi-performance oriented models like NSX, S2000, Type-Rs) is usually high. It is something that is measured by every magazines, and I don't give much importance to it. For me, stability and steering control is far more important than braking distance, where Hondas perform very well. This comes from experience. I would rather have harder brake pads that need not be changed for 100K miles than softer pads that give up in 30-40K miles and are more expensive. Distance is something I manage on my own.

Is Honda/Acura blind when it comes to sporty competition? Although, it's a different conversation they seemed to do a similar pricing mistake with the Civic SI (admittedly, the styling was more questionable than this model).
Absence of stripped models does make pricing seem high. But then, a look at comparably equipped near luxury cars that TSX would go against brings out the other side. For example, compare Audi 1.8TQ to Acura TSX and tell me what you get for $26K.

Acura: what's up with the trunk hinges??
It is not the straightforward hinges. It is very similar to what you will see in a Mercedes, or Lexus. These hinges are preferred over struts for their ease of operation, and possibly life.

robertsmx

I compared Accord Coupe 6-speed to BMW 325Ci (5-speed manual). The base price (including destination) for the two is $26,360 and $30,295 respectively. Besides the never-ending FWD versus RWD debate, it is striking to note that with the extra $4K, leather, power seats, CD changer and moonroof are still optional equipment in the bimmer. And at $25K, TSX is expensive?

As for legroom, something that I found interesting. Accord Coupe has rear legroom at 31.9" while the bimmer comes with 33.2". However, Accord Coupe's corresponding front legroom is 43.1" and the bimmer offers 41.7". Obviously, it would be about adjusting the front seats as the total legroom (front + rear) between the two is nearly identical at 75" and 74.9" respectively.

Interior roomwise, TSX should be between Accord Sedan and Accord Coupe, about 42" front and about 34" rear (about the same as Passat).

sunilb

at $25K, I think the TSX is "okay" if it comes loaded (as H/A vehicles tend to), but the range of $25-$30K worries me.

For a manual TSX (non-Nav, but otherwise loaded) to be priced over $25K would be a mistake, in my mind.

robertsmx

I doubt there will be a price difference between 5-speed auto and 6-speed manual. Based on observation, CL-S and Accord Coupe, both with 6-speed, cost as much as their 5-speed auto counterparts (albeit they have some differences of their own). TSX, with either 5-speed auto or 6-speed manual, and with the features, upto $26K, sounds like a good Prelude replacement for me. More than that could be pushing it into Accord EXV6 and even, TL territory.

raychuang00

The new Acura TSX looks like a nice car, and with 200 bhp it'll probably have fairly decent performance (I expect 0-60 times somewhere between 7 and 8 seconds).

Personally, I'm wondering if Honda may be working on a new engine that will eventually go into the TSX. One strong possibility: a new inline-5 engine of 2.6 liters displacement, but instead of longitudinal installation like it was on the Vigor and the original TL 2.5 model, it will be compact enough for transverse installation. I expect such an engine to be rated around 225-230 bhp (with a big fat torque curve), but with better fuel mileage than the 3.0-liter V6 found on the 2003 Accord. Such an I5 engine could also be a candidate for the Honda CR-V and Element SUV's and the upcoming Honda Latitude small van, which in 200 bhp (but wider torque band) form could alleviate fears about the CR-V, Element and Latitude being underpowered for American driving styles.

jjpcat

Initially, I was not happy to see that price. But on the second thought, I don't care too much about MSRP. In this competitive market, it's the competition that dictates the final sale price. Even if Honda lists TSX at $20k, you won't get it at $20k. Dealers will post a huge mark up. On the same token, if MSRP is $35k, then Acura/Dealers will have to offer rebate as big as that for RL in order to move the cars.

What really worries me is Acura is planning on making only 15k of TSX each year. That could force those people who really like TSX to pay unusual high price for it. During the recent years, Honda has screwed up so many times on pricing and production (Odyssey, TL, MDX, etc.).

sunilb

Again, I think b/c of this price point, there is plenty of competition for your money, and I would never pay MSRP (or more).

I perceive the TSX to be low on the radar for most consumers, so demand should be sated with 15K/year.

ambull

Maybe they're going by how many 4-door Integras sold. How many of those sold per year - anybody know?

robertsmx

Sometimes, volume is dictated by production capacity. That is certainly the case with the light trucks offerings (Pilot, Odyssey and MDX). But recently, Honda has managed to increase the production on Odyssey (over 170K sold last year compared to 90K they targeted with introduction). But, it appears to move off the lots as quickly as they are unloaded. Last weekend I was at a Honda dealership, and didn't see any Odyssey or Pilot upfront. There were only two Elements (one on display and another was being prepped, probably sold) and two CRVs.

Japan will be the only source of JDM and Euro Accord, and Acura TSX, so the volume will also be affected by the demand of the smaller Accord in the respective market. Honda could produce them in Ohio, but this factory is already running to its capacity (hence the need to import some American Accords from Japan). If Accord does well in Europe and in Japan, we could see limited volume of TSX. Part of the pricing game with the dealers will also depend on the new TL, which should arrive shortly after TSX is released.

raychuang00, I doubt that we will see an Inline-5 from Honda anytime soon. J25A (2.5 liter V6) replaced the 2.5-liter I-5 in the Japanese market five years ago. K24A is an excellent engine to start with, so I doubt we will even see J25A into TSX either (J25A is rated at 200 HP/178 lb.-ft and is the smallest of the Honda J-series V6 engines).

That said, I would like to see IMA variant of TSX as the Type-S, by the time I am ready to replace my Accord. I wouldn't mind paying about $30K for 240 HP (190 HP gasoline + 50 HP electric), AWD hybrid sport sedan that TSX can be.

diploid

I believe some blurbs from the auto shows state that Acura has established the TSX as a "gateway" car to Honda's premium brand. I guess that's a reason why 1500 will be produced. Customers might go in looking for a TSX and come out with a TL.

varmint

This is the release version. They still have plently of TLs and CLs on the lot. When those two are redesigned, Acura will be free to add whatever to the TSX. Until then, they need to keep the TSX in it's place.

Another consideration... If they release this vehicle with every little ammenity in their parts catalog, what will they add when the design is looking a bit old in 3 years?

rihoops

I have a 2001 MDX and a 1999 Accord EX V6 Sedan. I don't know if I'll trade the accord in for the TSX, but if the price goes on the new TL as is speculated, I will consider it. Any chance on Acura producing a TSX wagon, like the JDM Accord wagon?

varmint

The 2.4 has already alleviated concerns about power in the CR-V and Element. You want to drag with mustangs, or something? A tweaked version of the 2.4 is certainly possible without an engine compartment overhaul, without sacrificing much low-end torque, and could be built in the same factories. The 200 hp engine in the TSX would be compatible and would put a 5-speed CR-V in the seven second range (faster than anything else currently in its class). I expect something more like 180 hp in a few years from the same 2.4L block.

A 2.5L I5 would be expensive as well as overkill.

robertsmx

The exterior dimensions,
Length: 183.3" (Passat: 185.2"; Mazda6: 186.8"; Accord: 189.5", Altima: 192.5")
Width: 69.4" (Passat: 68.7")
Wheelbase: 105.1" (Passat: 106.4")

The interior dimensions (Front/Rear),
Head Room: 37.8"/37.3" (Passat*: 37.8"/37.3")
Leg Room: 42.4"/34.2" (Passat: 41.5"/35.3")

* not sure if the head room in Passat measured with moonroof

raychuang00

robertsmx,

The reason why I suggested an all-new I-5 engine is the fact I have my doubts the 2.5-liter V6 could fit under the hood of the TSX, let alone on the CR-V, Element SUV and the upcoming Latitude small van.

Given Honda's experience with engines I wouldn't be surprised a new I-5 engine will be available within two years.

chillenhonda

Although a 5-cylinder might make sense forpower/economy terms as well as packaging, I think the fact that 5-cylinders are inherently unbalanced and because of the lack of success of the Vigor and the 2.5TL (low sales, lackluster reception, hard to work on) will make HOnda stay with V6's. A compact V6 might actually fit better then a 5-cylinder in the space of the CRV's and TSX's 4-cylinder.

kthenke

Anyone out there know the United Buying Service Acura Dealer located in Northern Virginia? UBS is a Maryland/Virginia car buying service offered through members of various organizations. I am trying to find out the dealer and contact name (salesperson), but have been unsuccessful on my initial attempts. Thanks!

bravedave

On the Temple of VTEC web site, they have a link which pulls up a view of the rear seat. It looks about the same size as a Civic back there. It may be a wee bit wider, but I can discern very little difference in legroom.

I was hoping the spacial difference between the TSX vs. Accord would not be so large. The wife & I plan to start a family soon, and we need the extra space. I refuse to buy an SUV or Minivan, but plan to stay with a sedan. I want something sporty in which to replace my Intrigue. A Mazda 6 is interesting, but it lacks the quality engineering that Honda pours into its products. The Altima has a cheap interior. The new Maxima is not aesthetically pleasing. I guess an Accord V6 will have to do.

I like the TSX--- it looks like a winner to me. BUT, the limited back seat room and small trunk would not meet our needs.

robertsmx

If you're looking at a largish family sedan, TSX might not fit your needs. Based on early specs (from PR), the interior dimensions of TSX are almost identical to Passat (legroom is exactly identical too). The hiproom and shoulder room are about even with Accord (rear seat hiproom is better in TSX). Trunk is small though, at 13.2 cu. feet.

diploid

I'm sure Honda intends this car for the single person. Just look how the front doors have puddle lamps while the rear doors don't. And notice there is extra knee room sculpted into the back of the front seats...the back seat is definitely not for long rides.

Also, the Euro Accord has 3 headrests in the back. The TSX has only two. This is a 2+2 at best.

rdmatos

Hello everyone, I was just wondering if the TSX will be available in a five speed automatic--I can't drive a manual to save my life, and I'm told that a five speed auto is a better ride than a typical four-speed. I was also wondering if anyone knows what month in which the TSX will be available next year (I'm hoping that my '88 Nissan can hold out--the TSX looks quite promising to me.) Your feedback and expertise would be greatly appreciated. Have a great night. Best Regards, RDM.

robertsmx

TSX will be available with 5-speed Automatic, shared with Accord, with Sport Shift. I believe this Acura goes on sale in April (may be late March) as a 2004 model.

diploid

Yes and April.

ickes_mobile

I agree with your conclusion that the TSX is aimed at singles, couples with no or young kids or as a second vehicle (the other being something bigger). But, I'm confused on your reasoning above.

The back seat is definately smaller than the NA Accord. However, the Euro Accord (with three headrests) and TSX (with two headrests) are the same car; the fact there is no middle rear seat headrest as they're being cheap. The Passat, with less hip and shoulder room, has three headrests too. The NA Accord has only two headrests and it too has the scooped seatbacks (as have several previous generations)even though it is bigger than either the TSX or Passat.

diploid

ickes - we have a 98 Accord. The back of the front seats are not sculpted to give additional knee comfort. I do not see it in the new Accord, either.

http://sohc.vtec.net/pics/04/tsx/04tsx_naias-021.jpg

compare:

http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/HondaAccord/Images/RearSeat.jpg

I don't see it. That's just the shape of the seat's back.

http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_040411

And certainly not in this picture.

The lack of a 3rd headrest means that they're cheap, as well as acknowledging that this car is not a family car. The Passat's 3 headrests is saying that VW, despite the physical limitations, is advertising the Passat as a family car. I think Honda is taking that same route in Europe. In NA, they're taking a different route, mainly because they have the much bigger NA Accord to fill the family sedan gap. As for the NA Accord's lack of a 3rd rear headrest, I don't know. But they do overtly bill it as a family sedan.

ickes_mobile

the top of the seat on your '98, my '01 and the new '03. Its different than that on the TSX I'll grant you. Its still not a straight seatback on any of them for the purpose of increasing rear legroom. The lower seat cusion on the TSX also looks longer than the one in the new Accord.

But, like I said, I agree with your conclusion. I don't think Honda has any intention of making rear seat room the centerpiece of the TSX's sales pitch. That IS what the Accord and TL are for afterall. Besides, the competition (VW Passat, Volvo S60, Audi A4, Saab 9-3, Mazda6, BMW 3-Series) isn't exactly cavernous in terms of rear accommodations either. If that's your priority, you're probably looking at something other than the TSX or its direct competition anyway.

Would you beleve a VW salesman once tried to tell me you could get three baby seats across in the rear of a Passat(not that we'll ever have that particular need). Its barely wide enough for three kids outside of a seat...

diploid

Sales people will tell you anything. When I was buying my RAV4, the salesman kept praising its "V-6" engine.

dudleyr

I have put 3 baby seats in the back of a Passat with no problem.

I am considering a TSX for my family (yes we do have another larger vehichle, but I usually shuttle the kids around in my car), it may not be the largest car out there, but it sure has a ton more room than my Integra (3 door hatch). Which I use every day to haul my 3 kids around. Some times I am amazed by how much space people feel they need. Europeans are just as large as we are (maybe not quite as wide) and they consider the TSX (accord) to be a large family car.

Right now I am leaning towards the Mazda 6 Hatch or Wagon - just so much more versatile than a sedan with no down side. If the TSX came as a wagon that would be great.

robr2

...I too am considering the TSX for hauling around 2 kids (1 just about out of a booster and 1 just about moving from car seat to booster). Back seat room isn't a grave concern for me unless it's grownups' night out and we carry a couple of other parents with us. We have an Ody for the family trips and Home Depot/Costco runs.

I would like the versatility of a wagon and would be more pleased if a TSX wagon version were available. The Mazda6 wagon will be a distinct possibility as well.

rihoops

My wife and I have an MDX for space, a TSX would replace our accord sedan,and would be great for us and our young son.

muscarel

Does anyone have an idea what the TSX will end up weighing? Someone had mentioned in an earlier post, something like 3200 lbs. Although that's not tremendous, it seems about 300 lbs. heavier than I expected. A 2.4 l NA Accord weights about 3000 lbs. and from what I understand the NA Accord is a bit bigger than the TSX. I think anything heavier than 2900 or so will overburden the motor and make the car less fun to drive. Isn't it supposed to be a "4 door RSX"? The RSX only weighs 2700 lbs or so.

diploid

I am waiting until the official NA specs reveal the TSX's weight. The only thing I can think of that would cause the extra 300 lb in the TSX would possibly be the alloy rims. But even then I don't think they should weigh that much, but I could be wrong.

But the TSX is more aerodynamic than the NA Accord.

robertsmx

Third Headrest:
In Japan, third headrest comes in Euro-R model only. Other trims of Accord have two headrests.

Weight:
Beefier suspension/wheels and a long list of features can easily add up. My 98 Accord EX-L is listed at about 3200 lb. TSX should be somewhere between 3100-3200 lb (my Prelude was about 3000 lb.).

yugoboy

I am in total agreement with you when it come's to the mazda 6 wagon, how can u beat the versatility, look's, and performance(hopefully a manual stick and the 220 hp as the sedan)!!!!

http://www.avtoin.com/zeneva2002/slike/Mazda%206%20SW.jpg

And no tacky chrome around the window's or on the door handle's(drives me crazy)!!!!

iceman16

Back seats are hard to evaluate from measurements or photographs. You really do have to sit in them, and decide for yourself. However, according to the measurements, the TSX interior is the same size as the Mazda6 and the previous generation Accord. Don't buy a Mazda6 wagon because you think the back seat is bigger!

With a 6-speed manual transmission and a big 4 cyl, the TSX will go like a bat out of hell. With a leather interior and killer stereo, you can drive your wife and friends to the theater. My 6-feet-tall sons fit in the back of my 99 Accord on our 3-hour trip to the family lake cabin, and I'm sure they'll do just as well in the TSX. (OK, I have to pull the driver's seat forward a little, but that's OK).

I wouldn't get the automatic, with any Honda 4 cyl. engine. The i-VTEC's power band starts at a higher RPM than the automatic is set up for. If you like an automatic tranny, get a V6.

dudleyr

Actuually the back seat is much bigger in a Wagon. Most of us when seating actually project in two directions - the legs towards the front seats, and the torso towards the roof ; ^ ). Station wagons always have more headroom than sedans. A big issue for some of us. I am impressed by the extra versatility of the wagon, not so much the extra room. I also like the hatchback, which has hardly any more room than the sedan, but is much more versatile because of the hatch. Yes I agree the TSX is plenty big for most of us, yes it will be plenty fast, and yes the manual is the way to go.

I do hope the manual has a real 6th gear, and they didn't stuff all six gears in the same space as a 5 speed -all for the sake of a tenth of a second or two in a drag race. The speed limit here is 75, and my cruise is usually set near 80 - this gets awfully tiring without a nice tall top gear. Right now my Integra spends an entire trip above 4,000 rpm. Give the Type R (when it comes out) super short gearing, but for a pseudo luxury car relaxed cruising is a must.

Quick PS. on hatchbacks. I bought a bed for my kid this summer I picked it up and the guy said where is your truck. I popped the hatch on the Integra, folded the seats, and we put in the box spring, the mattress, the frame, and the headboard - try that with a sedan. (no the hatch was not closed all the way, but close)

diploid

I think the 6-speed is borrowed from the RSX-S?

vtec reports that the plood in the TSX is actually real wood. Jeff from vtec says that all Acuras from now on will use real wood veneer.

silvernubira

"I think the 6-speed is borrowed from the RSX-S?"

If this is so, it is somewhat disappointing based on the complaints about this transmission and Acura's response to such complaints (see clubrsx.com).

nowakj66

You have to ask yourself - what is the rationale of buying a TSX over a 4 cy Accord EX with a 5 speed?

diploid

It's called preference.