Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Acura TSX
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And let's keep in mind that this car is designed to be a sports sedan, not a family sedan, and positioned midway between the RSX and the TL. As such, we expect some compromises to get a sportier car. Yes, its probably not as comfortable, smooth, powerful, nor as good a value as an Accord V6 EX. Well, I don't think Honda's idea was to produce an Accord competitor. The Accord is an extremely competent car and any car which attempts to be sportier than it, is going to make some compromises for that mission.
If the car truly gets into the $25K range, its going to be a compeling package.
- Mark
The point I wanted to make all along.
Anyone know if the new accord can fit the current TL-S sway bars like the old one could. Judging by its growth in size I would guess not.
On 2004 TL, my guess is that it will cost within $500 of the current version (i.e. base model starting at about $29,500), however, it will gain in terms of standard and optional features, much like 2003 Accord did. And while TSX sounds expensive, it will be a low volume car. Targeted volume is apparently only 15K units per year. To put it in perspective, Acura sells over 60K TL per year, about 10-12K RL per year and Honda sells more than 15000 Accords in two weeks. So, TSX will come fully equipped with no 'base model' and only option being NAV. Still, I would think it will come with MSRP of about $26K ($28K w/NAV).
Legroom (F/R)
1998-2002 Accord: 42.1/37.9
2003- Accord: 42.6/36.8
There is a small gain (0.4") in overall legroom compared to previous generation. Outside, the car is about an inch wider and only 0.1" longer (189.5" compared to 189.4"). Overall interior volume is about the same (102.7 cu. ft in DX/LX models; 98.5 cu. ft in EX models).
That said, TSX is already 'Sport Tuned' with low profile tires on 17" rims, 3-spoke wheels and available 6-speed manual transmission. So, that leaves little room to make TSX sportier than it is being delivered as (unless ofcourse, Honda goes the Type-R route). If TSX came with a 'touring' suspension, 16" rims, and a base price in low-20s with less features as well, we could have expected this TSX as Type-S.
Anyone know why Honda doesn't use turbos? And wasn't there a Honda City Turbo in Japan a few years back?
In addition, Honda sells 'FX' (marine) with 1.2 liter DOHC i-4 turbo engine pumping 165 HP.
BTW, the other SEMA concept (CL-S) had the 3.2 liter V6 supercharged delivering 312 HP at the wheels.
Adding 300HP in a FWD vehicle is pushing the limits of driveability, IMHO.
I would seriously consider ditching my favorite car company Honda, and hop onto the Mazda bandwagon, if the Mazdaspeed "6" (with AWD and 280HP), also came with a Navigation System. But since it does not, I will wait for a TL Sportwagon version with AWD and 300+ HP and the Navigation system, to replace my current 3.2TL with Navigation.
If Subaru came out with a Turbo Legacy version with the 2.5L DOHC Turbo with Active Valve control (300HP/300Torque), I would hop onto the Subaru too...but unfortunately they don't come with the Navigation system. The new STi version of the Impreza comes with the same engine (300HP/300Torque) and 6-speed manual (that can comfortably and reliably take well over 450HP/Torque) HID headlamps, Front Electronically controlled Differential, center Electronically controlled Driver Torque Adjustable Differential (Driver can vary the front/rear default torque split manually or leave it to the computer to do it !!), rear Mechanical Torque-biasing differential, Rally type suspension....all for around 32K. Unfortunately, Subaru is only importing 5000 of them from Japan and hence dealer markup is a given. I will wait till all the frenzy subsides, before seriously considering one. I would never have considered a Subaru, until I purchased my current WRX Sportwagon...but having owned one, I definitely consider Subaru to be a worthy alternative to any other make and are engineered to take a hell of a beating and challenge for more.
Later...AH
BMW 325i--$36,200
Lexus IS300--31,500
Audi A4 1.8T--30,300
Mazda 6s--25,400
In terms of price, the only real competitor is the Mazda. Spending $5-11K more for the others listed just doesn't seem worth it IMO.
I recently sold a 1992 Prelude and replaced it with another car (Subaru LL Bean Wagon) and find myself missing the fun drivability of the Prelude. Got Married. Got responsible. But miss the car.
I too am excited about the TSX as a practical, reliable, reasonably priced car. Others I am considring include the Subaru WRX. While the WRX does not quite having the luxo-trappings of the TSX, my guess it is the WRX is the better performing car but that the TSX might have an edge in resale and cache.
Guess I will find out when we drive the TSX.
Also, how does the TSX compare to the A4 and new Saab 9-3? I read some scary things on the A4 townhall about reliability. Any thoughts?
Either you need the back seat room of the Accord, or you don't. If the TSX is too small, you can cross it off your list, but you are not going to know until you see one for yourself.
If you don't need the extra room, then you gain handling, better styling and different standard features.
You will know which one you like if you drive both.
If you are really cross shopping the cars, the Accord is a better value. The TSX is more for people who don't like the U.S. Accord much and are not really seriously considering it (because of looks, too common, too big, whatever).
TSX: Smaller, Sportier and more luxuriously appointed (atleast featurewise).
TSX has the following 'upgrades' over Accord EXV6,
17" rims, wider tires (Accord: 16")
Sport Suspension (Accord: Touring Suspension)
Sport Shift (N/A with Accord)
Availability of 6-speed manual (N/A with Accord Sedan)
Xenons (HID) headlamps
360 watt speaker Premium Audio
Stability Control (versus traction control only in Accord)
EVO magazine's review calls it the best handling Front Drive saloon with a fantastic engine and gearbox, and contradicts CAR on many issues. EVO also mentioned that Euro Aoord Type-S has sport package (stiffer suspension and 17" rims) is optional and they didn't have it. CAR had little coverage about the car they tested.
EVO says the faces on TSX and Maz6 look too similar. I agree, and think Honda is let down by its design, yet again!
That said, would you consider any of the sport sedan for their 0-60 run? Camry with V6 may be comparable to TSX (w/auto) but the real difference should be in the driving experience. Thats what TSX promises to deliver. And to it, there is more than 0-60 time.
BTW, load Camry V6 to TSX standards and you will be past $30K mark. And if 0-60 is what anybody needs, Altima 3.5SE and Accord EXV6 would be the best bet over any car, including BMW 325/330, Audi A4, Lexus IS300, Acura TSX and so on.
Lastly, I'd like to mention that some cars do not follow those rules. I recently drove a WRX and was completely disappointed in it's performance. It handled fine, but the power was so slow to come around that I could not imagine this being a fun car to drive on a daily basis. Of course, that was because of the turbocharged form of the engine. In normally aspirated cars, 0-60 times typically will give you a good idea of acceleration.
Engine: In-line 4-cyl, 2354cc, iVTEC
Max power: 190bhp @ 6800rpm
Max torque: 164Ib ft @ 4500rpm
0-60mph: 7.9sec (claimed)
Top speed: 141mph (claimed)
I see plenty of younger drivers stalling at traffic lights as soon as they turn green.
For another thing, the TSX will have 200 hp (OK it's only 10 hp more).
I think we'll be pleasantly surprised by the 0-60 times the US mags are able to obtain.
BTW, most European magazines, measure 0-100 km/h time which translates to 0-62 mph (not 0-60).
Is the type s a definite, or are we just assuming one will come out? If so, when, and can we expect the traditional Honda 100 hp/liter?
- Mark
- larger rims (17" if you go by TL/CL standards)
- sportier suspension (which I believe TSX will have)
- Low profile tires (aspect ratio is 50 on a tire with 215 mm width, same as TL/CL Type-S)
I doubt we will see a Type-S. But, unless Honda has something up the sleeve, we can never be sure. The Type-S could be delivered with Sport Suspension (i.e. Type-R like treatment) and stickier tires with lower profile (JDM Accord Type-S and Euro-R are using 215 mm tire width to go with aspect ratio of 45, also on 17" rims).
As far as engine goes, 100 HP per liter from the current iteration of the 2.4 liter I-4 is going to be difficult. IMO, 7000-7200 rpm redline that TSX will have is already pushing the limits for an engine with stroke of 99 mm (not many engines have such long stroke). By comparison, K20A (RSX) stroke is 86 mm, F20C (S2000) has it at 84 mm and J30A (Accord V6) is at 86 mm.
A typical Honda engine can develop 100 HP per liter at around 7500 rpm and to take advantage of the output, it would make sense to have a redline a few hundred rpm past it (around 8000 rpm). With 99 mm stroke, I doubt Honda will try to push it.
Honda could design a brand new engine with shorter stroke (larger bore would be required to ensure same displacement or they could develop a 2.2 liter engine to deliver 240 horses). Honda has done this in the past, and can do it again. The latest example was the F23A (the 2.3 liter unit in Accord). It too had a long stroke (about 97 mm I believe). And since Honda has traditionally developed SOHC and DOHC heads for the same block in the past (Prelude's 2.2 liter DOHC versus Accord's 2.2 liter SOHC), they chose to develop H23A for last generation Accord Wagon SiR (Japan). This 2.3 liter I-4 had shorter stroke but had the same displacement as its SOHC counterpart (F23A).
Or, making use of IMA (electric assist) to add 40-50 horses to the K24A is a good possibility as well!
At the time the 2.2L DOHC VTEC Prelude was intro'd (1993), it was the 1992-96 Prelude Si model used the same 2.3L block as the Accord. So actually, it was the 2.3L block that was common to the Accord and 4G Prelude, with SOHC/DOHC accounting for most of the difference in output.
Interesting to find no Honda in the lower GT300 division, where Silvia, MRS (MR2 to us), RX7 & SEMAC battle. ITR can keep up with any of those guys! Does anyone know what SEMAC is?
http://www.auto-report.net/index.html?premiumdtable.html
Acura TSX 6 speed MT - curb weight 3020 lbs.
has a review, though you may have to search for it.
The latest CAR & EVO magazines also have reviews, but I don't know if they are online.
My broad take away is that the TSX is a nice car, with a interior nicer than the Mazda6 but below the Passat. At the same time it has handling above the Passat, but below the Mazda6.
I don't think this is a bad thing, as it is a nice compromise for good handling, nice interior, and [hopefully] reliatbility.
BTW, European Accord Type-S doesn't come with the chassis tuning that TSX is supposed to. Sport suspension and 17" rims with lower profile tires are optional.
BTW, the evo website is www.evo.co.uk
You need to click on "DRIVEN". The review is right there.