Acura TSX

ickes_mobile

the TSX gets the 2.4L and not the 2.0L I-4...

robertsmx

In stop and go driving, 200 horses aren't required. Good low-end torque would be just fine to get the power in such situations. It wouldn't surprise me if this K24A develops 95% of its peak torque at 2000 rpm. It will have a very broad torque curve as the dyno plot at JDM website suggests. Then, factor in gearing.

For comparison, let us use 1998-2002 Accord EXV6 (3329 lb). It had about 17% more torque in the mid range than this K24A (195 lb.-ft versus 166 lb.-ft). But, courtesy of having five speed auto and possibility of gearing shared with RSX (base), TSX will have 18% shorter gearing. Which mean, TSX, despite of having less torque from the engine, is making up for it via tighter gearing. So, do not be surprised if TSX feels as much powerful as 1998-2002 Accord V6, even with 5-speed auto. It certainly would match the 0-60 (upper 7 seconds) and quarter mile run as well. That is more than enough for all but drag racing.

Now, here is another perspective. I have recently put over 5000 miles on a rented Hyundai Sonata V6. On paper, the 2.7/V6 has considerable advantage in torque and power compared to my 98 Accord (2.3 liter I-4). However, based on my experience, the Accord, despite being heavier of the two, feels much more peppier, around town, from standstill or from rolling speeds. This is probably due to the willingness of engine to rev and respond quickly to any driver input as well as proper gearing. And most Accord owners will tell you (including me) that the H23A is more than enough for most of the driving needs. K24A in the 2003 Accord is even better (note that several reviews of Accord with I-4 have mentioned the engine to match or beat some V6s in execution and smoothness). The TSX version of K24A is even more advanced, with more power and torque, and uses drive-by-wire throttle as well (like 2003 Accord V6).

I see your point in increasing the displacement and adding another cylinder to do so. But I doubt Honda will take the route of a transversely mounted engines. There are some benefits to it (as was apparent in the mid-90s when Honda developed DOHC versions of the 2.5 liter I-5 SOHC then used in Vigor for Argento Viva and SSM concepts, both RWD, in 1995). But, Honda practice is now to mount the engine just in front of the front axle (instead of FM configuration) for front drivers, probably to reduce torque steer and improve traction. Transverse engine mounted Hondas also had very long wheelbase (notice that the wheel base shrunk from over 111 inch to 108.1 inch with redesign of TL in 1999). This can mean considerable design changes of the platform. A simpler solution would be to stretch TSX to Accord Coupe dimensions, and put the J25A or J30A. In this case, the difference between TSX and Accord would be only in styling and suspension tuning, and with the additional features, it will cost almost as much as the next TL! So, instead of having another $28-30K V6 sedan, Acura might be settling in for a lighter and smaller sport sedan priced from at about $26K.

muscarel

I agree that Honda makes great 4 cylinder engines and that their i-vtec engines spread the torque well across the rpm range, but 166 ft-lbs torque pulling a 3200 lb car is marginal at best. Yes, 60 mph in 7 sec is good, but most of the time, getting on the freeway quickly and quietly without hitting the rev limiter is more important. We won't know how good it performs until the car comes out and we can test drive it (or at least read a review on one). A "light" sport sedan should not weigh 3200 lbs. I'm sure Acura will sell every one of these things they can build (and I may be one of them!), but I'm a bit disappointed in the overall weight of the car. If they could have kept the weight down a bit more, they would have hit a home run with this car.

BTW, are people really comparing this car to the Mazda 6? I don't care what the comparison looks like on paper, these cars will be leagues apart. The Acura looks classy, while the Mazda tries too hard....and never mind the 6's Ford genes....

jjman

nobody knows the true weight of the tsx yet, but seeing that it is alot smaller than the accord it shouldn't weigh 3200. I would guess at the most 3100

robertsmx

With a car capable of running 0-60 in 7 seconds, you wouldn't need to hit the rev limiter for getting up to speed on a freeway entrance. Keep it under 6000 rpm (over 1000 rpm under the redline), and you've got a 180+ HP car, as much as BMW 325 would give you at 6000 rpm (which may be a heavier car as well), and reasonably more than an Accord gives you.
As for weight, with all the safety and solidity that is being built into cars and a long list of features that go with it, cars are gaining weight. Considering that Prelude was about 3000 lb., I wouldn't be surprised that TSX weighs about 150 lb. more. Audi A4 is a smaller car, but it weighs 3252 lb. (with 1.8T, 5-speed manual, and 15" rims in base trim, about 3450 lb. with 1.8T Quattro). TSX is comparable to Passat in size, and Passat weighs about 3350 lb.

muscarel

Does anyone know where we can see a dyno of the 2.4 engine (either the one in the current accord or the one that will go in the TSX). I'm curious how the torque curve looks at low rpm.

robertsmx

Here is the dyno plot for JDM Accord 24S/T/TL. It should be very similar for TSX.

And here is the dyno plot for K24A in American Accord.

maxhonda99

Does anybody know what kind of safety equipment the TSX will have standard? optional?
I'm guessing not much will come optional except for NAV system and maybe a performance variant later.

Will it have side curtain bags for front and rear passengers?

robertsmx

Everything in TSX will be standard except NAV (and choice of 5-sp SportShift auto or 6-sp manual).
Side airbags, side curtain airbags, 4-channel 4-disc ABS w/EBD (electronic brake distribution), VSA (stability control) are standard.

venus537

are you saying the automatic will not cost more than the manual?

pat

Not necessary, see pat Jan 6, 2003 10:24am.

:-)

robertsmx

It is possible since Acura CL-S w/auto or w/6-sp have same MSRP as does Accord EXV6 w/auto or w/6-sp. But in both cases, content is little different (CL-S gets helical LSD, and the Accord gets upgraded rims and suspension). In case of TSX, I doubt there will be a difference in features, so who knows, they may or may not be priced the same with either tranny. However, if 6-sp gets LSD (as it does in CL-S), then same MSRP for auto or manual is a good possibility. But there has been no indication on any difference so far.

dudleyr

If you want a preview of what the TSX will be like to drive (in terms of acceleration) then test drive a Honda Accord with the 4 cyl. I drove the 4 cyl 5-speed (manual) Accord, and it was plenty fast (significantly faster than my Integra which has always been fast enough for my needs). Now with the speed of the Accord in mind - picture the TSX having 5 more lb-ft of torque, 40 more horsepower, more gear ratios (6), better aerodynamics, and a lighter weight. It should be noticably faster than the Accord.

Lets keep this in perspective - there are nearly a decades worth of Corvettes from the seventies and early eighties that could not keep up with this TSX. At the time nobody was calling them underpowered, or not able to keep up on the freeway.

Regarding weight. Where did this 3200 lb number come from? There is no way the TSX will weigh that much. The Accord weighs 3109 lbs in EX trim (a DX model is 2989 lbs). I expect the smaller TSX to come in close to 3,000 lbs. Add about 60 lbs for the automatic.

robr2

...weight: I just checked out Honda's German website (www.honda.de) and it gives an unloaded weight specification on the Euro Accord of 1393 - 1488 KG. That converts to 3071-3280 lbs.

One can extrapolate that to the NA model based on minor changes for this market.

robertsmx

Larger wheels, chassis reinforcements, extra cog in the tranny (5-sp versus 6-sp) and additional features can easily add up. Here is an example,
RSX: 2694 lb. (5-speed manual)
RSX Type-S: 2767 lb. (6-speed manual)
RSX: 2767 lb. (5-speed auto)

dudleyr

One thing to keep in mind is that the Europeans may calculate weight differently. Full tank of gas and other fluids vs. a minimal amount. It adds up and makes a difference.

I would be dissapointed if the TSX weighs more than the larger EX Accord. Even a 6 cylinder Mazda 6 weighs 3,243 lbs. I have a minivan (first gen Odyssey) that weighs about 3,500 lbs, so a little sports sedan approachinig 3,300 seams bloated to me.

muscarel

I checked out the site you referred to. My German isn't great (ok, I don't speak it at all), but it seems under the "type-s" model, the curb weights are as high as 1553 kg(3,400 lbs). Does anyone know if "Leergewicht" means curb weight? It also lists a performance of 0-100 km/hr (62 mi/hr) of 7.9/9.0 (manual/auto). The engine is listed as having only 190 HP, though. That's not very impressive for a sport sedan.

muscarel

Checked it out....means "unloaded weight". It's a fatty.

breld

For what it's worth, this month's C&D comparison had the Accord EX, manual trannie, going 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. In a previous review, they have the RSX-S doing it in 6.3. I would imagine the TSX would fall somewhere in between; I would think a flat 7 would be conservative. Assuming the handling and feel is as good as expected, that seems plenty quick enough to have some real driving fun.

muscarel

...And a previous road test had the accord 4 cylinder with manual doing 0-60 in 7.9 (I think it was the motor trend car of the year issue). If you add 300 lbs. and 40 HP, you probably end up around the same performance (+/- tenths on a second).

diploid

I think Honda is positioning the TSX as a sportier model to the NA Accord - I think its 0-60 times will be similar to the RSX-S.

But everything's still in the air at this point.

I was on the road today and some punk kid in his RSX cut me off and sped away. Needless to say, I was eating his proverbial dust.

gee35coupe

For the TSX from Acura? Very nice wallpaper in there.

robertsmx

Should be similar or better than BMW 325. My guess, 7.0s w/manual.

phild_mason

I got the intro e-mail. Some nice pics, wallpaper, but geeze throw us a few bones...specs, build your own like you can at Honda website...etc.

A little thin on info for a splashy intro. I suppose they are trying to drive you to the showroom, but I want some more data.

jjpcat

You can get the spec at

http://www.hondanews.com/forms/acura/TSX/index.html

It has been there for quite a while. The rear seat IS tight on the paper. But how we feel when we sit there in person could be a different story.

I hate Honda to put up the password for us to download the high res pictures. But the 2 interior pictures look really nice.

sickasadog

the question for me is this - is this still going to be a luxury car, with all the nice things? for example, is it going to have auto-up windows, fog lights, auto-dim mirrors, traction control, heated mirrors, memory seats, etc.?

wgr

Maybe this has been discussed earlier, but I was surprised to see that while the TSX will have 200 hp, the torque is only 166. For those who know more about cars than I do: Is this noticeably low, especially with an automatic ?

dudleyr

Hold the phone - I was just looking at the specs that were linked above, and the TSX gets 21 mpg city and 29 highway with the manual tranny. That is horrible. The Accord with a V-6 and an automatic gets 21 and 30, the 4cyl 5-speed gets 26 and 34. Even a Chevy Impala with a 3.4 liter engine gets 32 mpg on the highway.

What gives? The whole point of having a 4-cyl is to be more efficient and have less weight. Now it looks like the car is a heavy guzzler. It looks nicer than the Accord, and probably handles a little better, but looks are about last on my list anyway - I can't see the car when I am driving it and don't really care what others think. If I had to chose between the two I would definately prefer the Accord at this point, and as a bonus I would save thousands of dollars. The "luxury" features are wasted on me anyway, as I would pay extra not to have some of them - most notably the sunroof.

robertsmx

sickasadog,
Yes, it will have all the nice things that Accord EX (leather) has, and then some more. The additional standard equipment/upgrade over Accord EX-L,
8-speaker audio system (360 W)
Perforated leather seats
Side Curtain airbags
Vehicle stability assist (traction + side slip control)
17" wheels
Sport Shift with automatic and 6-speeds with manual
Xenon headlamps (HID)

wgr,
TSX appears to have sufficient torque to offer a pleasant driving experience. It is not always the torque rating of the engine, but also its eagerness to rev and the gearing. TSX has more torque than Accord EX (a comparable car), and if you have driven the new Accord, as some reviews have noted, even with only 160 HP, the Accord feels like it is using a small V6. TSX should feel stronger than the Accord, if not as strong as the new Accord V6.

robertsmx

dudleyr,
TSX is probably using 'performance gearing' as opposed to 'relaxed gearing' offered in Accord, hence the difference in EPA estimates. Based on your needs, it appears to me that TSX isn't the car for you. It is being marketed as a sport sedan, and the choice of I-4 probably had more to do with balancing the chassis and making it more nimble than would be possible by stuffing a heavier engine on the nose. Not always is it gas mileage. Instead of offering the same car with a different look, I prefer the idea of seeing TSX and Accord as two different cars in attitude and execution.

wgr

I also think the TSX looks better than the Accord - based upon the pictures, maybe a lot better. But, I would be hard pressed to spend several thousand more for it. Also the V6 Accord has 40 more horses.

jjpcat

I guess TSX uses very low gear ratio with the stick shift to achieve great performance. That's why its mileage is not good (325/330 has about the same numbers). But its mileage with auto is better at 22/31.

Note that this is not the official EPA number. It's just Honda's estimation.

On the paper, its interior dimensions are almost the same as 94-97 Accord EX. It's too big outside for a 325/330 shopper to consider TSX.

robertsmx

TSX is about the size of Passat.

dudleyr

Actually the TSX has less room inside than a Civic, a Corolla or a Protoge, 90.9 Cubic ft. Those 3 are in the 92-93 range. Mazda 6 and Passat are in the 96-97 range (100 for the wagon), Camry and Accord are about 103. I was thinking it would be in the Mazda 6/Passat size.

So less room than a Civic, with more weight than an Accord EX-4 (maybe even as much as a V-6 if some estimates are correct), and worse mileage than a V-6 Accord. It may still be an engaging car to drive, and it is nice looking, but it does not seem to fit Hondas mold. I am whole heartedly in favor of the concept, but the execution seems a tad off. I am all for small cars, in fact I prefer them (my favorite car is still my 1980 Scirocco at just under 2,000 lbs and 156 inches), but not one that has the space of a Corolla with a 700 lb penalty.

FWIW Accord coupe even has a skosh more room at 91.1 cu ft.

bjvjs

I own a 2000 Prelude, a 1998 Accord, and a 2000 Acura TL. Everything on the Acura seems to be made slightly better than the Accord and I mean everything. My next car will definitely be a TSX or the 2004 TL. You pay a little more for the Acura but the refinement and quality are clearly superior.

dudleyr

Although I have an Acura, I admit that I am probably not refined enough for a newer one, so it would be wasted on me. ; ^ )

jjpcat

TSX comes with moonroof as standard while most other models you mentioned don't. If you equip those cars with moonroof, you will have 2-4 less cf in those models.

More important, don't take those numbers on the paper seriously. They can be extremely misleading. Find the spec of the cars you have driven and you will know why I said this. For example, I feel I have the same rear leg room in IS300 and Civic. But on the paper, it's 30.3in vs 36in. Another example, Galant and E320 has 36.3in and 35.6in rear leg room, respectively. But E320 feels way roomier in the back.

I have been trying for years to get some explanations to this discrepancy between the numbers and the real feeling. So far I have had no luck. You may have noticed Consumer Report doesn't use those numbers. Instead, they post their own measurements.

robertsmx

Compiling the following list took a while, but provides a better perspective to discuss size. TSX and Passat have virtually identical headroom (front and rear), legroom (front and rear) and front shoulder room. I'm actually surprised at the hiproom (front and rear) in TSX. It appears to be the best in compact to midsize cars (better than Accord sedan or Altima as well). Overall interior volume is only 1.1 cu. feet less than Passat's.

Civic EX
Length 174.6
Width 67.5
Height 56.7
Weight 2601
Head Room (F/R) 38.0/36.3
Legroom (F/R) 42.2/36.0
Shldr Room (F/R)52.6/52.0
Hip Room (F/R) 51.2/49.8
Volume 88.1

A4/1.8T
Length 179.0
Width 69.5
Height 56.2
Weight 3252*
Head Room (F/R) 38.4*/37.2*
Legroom (F/R) 41.3/34.3
Shldr Room (F/R)55.1/53.4
Hip Room (F/R) NA/NA
Volume 90.1*
* Numbers are without moonroof

TSX
Length 183.3
Width 69.4
Height 57.3
Weight 3150 (est.)
Head Room (F/R) 37.8/37.3
Legroom (F/R) 42.4/34.2
Shldr Room (F/R)55.4/53.5
Hip Room (F/R) 54.4/54.4
Volume 90.9

Passat V6
Length 185.2
Width 68.7
Height 57.6
Weight 3373
Head Room (F/R) 37.8/37.3
Legroom (F/R) 41.5/35.3
Shldr Room (F/R)55.8/54.6
Hip Room (F/R) NA/NA
Volume 92.0

Accord Coupe V6
Length 187.6
Width 71.3
Height 55.7
Weight 3265
Head Room (F/R) 37.5/36.1
Legroom (F/R) 43.1/31.9
Shldr Room (F/R)56.1/55.4
Hip Room (F/R) 54.2/46.1
Volume 88.0 (91.2 cu. ft without moonroof)

iceman16

Thanks for the great stats! Just what I was looking for!

iceman16

There is no way the TSX weighs more than the NA Accord I4. They are built on the same platform, with slightly different versions of the same engine, only the NA Accord has a longer wheelbase.

iceman16

The 21 city/29 highway estimate for the 6-speed doesn't make any sense to me. I have to think this is a guesstimate.

dudleyr

Remember you can't compare headroom and legroom between manufacturers because they all do it slightly differently. You have to use a third source.

Consumers Reports is a pretty good benchmark for interior measurements, since they measure every car the same way.

surfbabe1977

Could the feeling of the seats depend on how deep the actual seat is? For example, if the seat is deeper, more of your body is on it and less of your legs are hanging out into the floor area? Therefore, on a short seat, more of your legs would hang off into the leg space?

robertsmx

I believe legroom is measured from some point on the seatback to the closest point on the dash.

dudleyr,
My post with specs was in response to your earlier post. That said, TSX isn't a car to go for if size is what one is after. This car satisfies them who thought the Accord has gotten too big for their preferences.
TSX is basically a small Accord with a different atitude. It sounds like a perfect sedan for me and all that remains is... does it deliver what it seems to promise?

diploid

Well with such high expectations from some of us, it may not!

Just for reference, C&D tested a 33K Saab 9-3 Vector 6-spd manual (3361 lb) and got 7.3 seconds 0-60.

hunter001

In the stats quoted above, if it were the Civic LX, the TSX would have had less interior space than a Honda Civic LX. The stats quoted were of the Honda Civic EX, that comes standard with a moonroof that eats into space.

In other words, the TSX has less interior space than the Honda Civic LX !!!

Why buy the TSX, especially if you need a small car package ? Buy the Civic for a much cheaper cost and much lighter package and much better mileage, if the interior appointments are not that big a deal for you. If the interior features are a big deal, then why buy a Honda ? Buy an Audi, that has one of the best interior designs in the industry, bar none.

JMHO.

beach15

Yeah, buy a new Civic and enjoy build quality that has gone down considerably, very poor refinement (read: buckboard, rattle your teeth out ride and loads of road noise), and rattles galore. The Civic has never been all that it's made out to be, and the '01-current models are really nothing to brag about. Hmm, I remember a C&D comparison test not long ago of econo cars where it was back very far in the ranking...

On another note, I too somehow received the "teaser" email from Acura about the TSX. I didn't like the styling of the Accord version that's been around for some months, but now it seems to be growing on me. That, and if it's being sold as an Acura, you know it must be a pretty decent car, even if it is a 4-banger. I want to find some more pics and look at it more sometime.

Oh, Audi....I think they're absolutely beautiful and still have just about the best materials and fit & finish in the business, but the reliability and mechanical quality under the surface doesn't have much of a good reputation. Gorgeuous, but troublesome.

diploid

Smaller than a Civic? Is the TSX really that small? People on vtec who've seen it say it resembles a 93-97 Accord in size.

phild_mason

Interior volume gives part of the story, but not all of it. How the roof is shaped, windows, seats etc all play into the feeling of space, numbers aside.

An Acura RL and TL have the same interior volume at 96 cubes. Are they the same size. I don't think so. I much prefer my RL in terms of overall feeling of space.

We can look at the numbers all we want but until we sit in one we won't really know how it feels...

robertsmx

Anybody having an issue with a small sedan shouldn't look at TSX. BTW, Civic LX beats Audi A4 and BMW 325 in size and mileage, and nearly matches Passat GLS V6 in size, so why not get the Civic over these cars?
I'm sure Honda could have increased the interior volume by going for MacPherson struts front suspension (Camry, Altima, Civic, Saab 9-3, BMWs etc.). Instead of a 5-link double wishbone rear suspension (Accord, TL, CL, Benz E-Class), Honda could have used a more compact 4-link (89-97 Accord, 2001+ Altima, BMWs) or 3-link (Civic, RSX, pre-89 Accords, Benz C-Class) or MacPherson Struts (Camry) or semi-independent (Passat, Golf, Corolla, Insight). These alternatives would have increased the interior as well as the trunk size, but some would still find plenty to complain about (like Honda going cheap as it happened with Civic). It is impossible to please everybody, and TSX is a classic example.

Now, if you read anybody muttering why Accord has gotten bigger, you know the reason.

Diploid:
TSX is the same size as 94-97 Accord. Since it will come with Moon Roof, the interior volume would be identical to 94-97 Accord EX (may be a little better in some areas).