Acura TSX

ickes_mobile

added the Euro Accord to its buyer's guide at the back of the magazine and it's "parting shot" on the last page was the previous generation car.

They aren't too excited about the car giving it only three stars (Passat, Mondeo, and Mazda6 get four stars) saying:

"Awkward-looking new saloon puts quality and low running costs ahead of dynamic driving experience. Well behind the Mazda6 in terms of driving fun, the Accord nonetheless successfully mimics VW and Audi levels of interior quality. On the right track, but no quite there yet."

Note that the interior is the same as the NA Accord over in Europe.

diploid

Just wait a few more weeks for the American reviews of the TSX...I think the embargo ends some time in March.

bravedave - besides its size, what are your impressions of the TSX? Overall - good, bad, so-so? And were you able to get inside?

bravedave

The interior appointments were quite nice. The car was a metallic silver with the black leather/ aluminum trimmed interior. It was well finished and the assembly was perfect. The materials had a nice, soft touch to them, except for the metal trim of course. The wife & I argued over which we liked better-- the TSX or the Accord V6... until the Acura attendant mentioned the pricing. He indicated the offical pricing had not been released, but it can expected to be in the high 20's--- $27-$29K was his best guestimate. Also, he did not seem to know all that much about the vehicle, as he indicated "this is the first one I've seen and I'm learning it as I go." That bothered me, as I think I know more about it than he seemed to know. Given the guy is an supposed dealer rep, he SHOULD know more than I do...

The TSX is a nice car, but size-wise, it is similar to an old Ford Contour. There is no way you can get three adults to sit in the back of that car comfortably. The size issue between the TSX and Accord was borderline until the price issue arose. The capability of the two cars is most likely so close that I can't reconcile the price difference and the size disparity. I know the TSX is supposed to be more sporting, but the compromise in utility is too severe for us. We look forward to trading my Intrigue for a new Accord V6.

As an asside, the TSX is significantly bigger inside than a BMW 3-series. The wife also mentioned the Bimmer looked rather cheap inside compared to the Acura. She still thinks the Bimmer looked like a Civic--- her remarks made me crack up

diploid

I wouldn't go as far as calling it cheap, but honestly, I really don't know what reviewers are talking about when they praise the 3-Series's interior. Though the materials are indeed of the highest quality, the interior looks plain and outdated.

But thanks for the follow up. Other people who went to other auto shows weren't allowed inside the TSX.

varmint

Dave - Thanks for the "inside scoop".

Anybody know if the 2.4 used in the Euro Accord or TSX is a 2 rocker or 3 rocker VTEC? I know it uses variable timing and lift on both the intake and exhaust valves, but I haven't seen anything regarding when the more aggressive cams kick in. Or if there are three sets of cams with 2 kick-in points.

I would think that a 3 rocker design would be best for keeping a flat torque curve and decent emissions. However, with such a (relatively) low redline, I'm not sure if it would be overkill.

1wiseguy

From the club TSX site:

http://home.nc.rr.com/ismith/tsx/

corloc

Dave - Did you notice if the car had Homelink for opening garage doors? Did the car ride lower than your Intrigue?

bravedave

I believe it did have Homelink, but I could be mistaken. Since I do not have a garage (yet)that was not something for which I was specifically looking. I recall some switchgear--prolly for Homelink--- above the center review mirrow. But after looking at so many cars, it is fair to say I may be confusing them-- and I could be wrong on this.

The car did seem to be a smidgen lower than my Intrigue, but after sitting in the driver's seat I would hardly describe it as if I were sitting on the floor. The seats were nicely bolstered and had above average lumbar support. They were in fact a little better than the Accord's. This may be one way the TSX differentiates itself from the American Accord.

As an asside, the expo had a 2004 Gran Prix. It was on a pedestal, and no one was allowed to touch or enter it. Frankly, that really ticked me off, as it is a Pontiac--- not a friggin' Bentley or something... I digress... The exterior looked OK. The driver side doors were open so you could peer inside it from a distance. The rear door had a huge opening, which impressed the wife. The door opened at a much wider angle than that of a regular car. The interior plastics looked hard and shiny. To be fair, they may have armour-all'ed the dash-- that combined with show lighting may give a false impression. But, from my perspective, the inside was typical GM.... i.e. the TSX and the Accord have nothing to worry about, from a design quality aspect.

fedlawman

I think the dashboard photos linked above show the TSX to be a knock off of the 3 series. Especially the black with titanium trim.

http://home.nc.rr.com/ismith/tsx/pages/P2210232_JPG.htm

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/bmw/3series/100180633/photos.html- - ?tid=edmunds.n.prices.leftsidenav..13.BMW*

porknbeans

My wife and I are looking to replace her car and currently have it narrowed down to the Accord, Max and the TSX. We also looked at the Mazda 6, but my wife was VERY disappointed in the seats (and I would have to agree). We saw the TSX on the turntable and I asked the sales guy how much they were going to be selling for. He agreed with what Dave stated earlier that they will be starting at $27k. The sales guy then asked us if we wanted to get inside because we looked like we didn't think it was big enough for our family. I positioned the driver seat where I wanted and then crawled into the back seat. There WAS plenty of head and leg room in both the front and the rear seats (I'm 6'-2" and...Reubenesque). The interior was very nice and the materials were top notch. The seats are very comfortable and the leather was soft and (seemingly) thicker than most Honda leather. The trunk also seemed to be very long just not very deep (typical for Honda, IMO). The sales guy said that the brochures would be in within a month and that they would be receiving 17 TSX's in their first shipment (2 of which are already spoken for). I'll be driving down to go for a test drive when they do come in. I also agree with Dave in that the difference in performance between the TSX and the Accord doesn't justify the price. Probably why the Accord is still at the top of our list. Fortunately, I'm in no hurry to pull the trigger and maybe, just maybe there will be some good deals to be had on the TSX (or the Accord for that matter) when I am ready.

ickes_mobile

They had it on the platform and on the floor at Chicago. Bravedave is right that Honda has nothing to fear from this "we'll do better" GM product. I don't know why anyone would believe GM, Ford, or DC when they say they will match the Japanese with each new generation. It never really happens. The new Pacifica has a cheap dash, the new Expedition and Explorer have cheap plastics (although the Navigator and Aviator aren't bad) and then there is the aforementioned GP and also the new Malibu.

My basic thought on this is it costs about X number of dollars to build a car at any given market segement. How you choose to allocate those dollars varies. Toyota and Honda put it into engineering the parts that you don't really see much but depend on. VW has been putting theirs into quality interiors which has rubbed off (falsely) on the image of the overall car. GM, Ford and DC have become second rate car makers that need to pack their cars with features to lure the value minded buyer, rather than trying to earn a reputation for quality the hard way.

Sorry for the rant...

diploid

Just nitpicking here...

I know the Acura logo (on the grille) usually has just one horizontal strip going through it, but does anybody else notice that there are really three for the TSX? There's the obvious middle one, but in some pictures, you can see two other ones (top, bottom) with thinner chrome strips.

Just curious as to whether or not this is just for the TSX or will Acura overhaul the overall lineup with this updated look.

1wiseguy

http://www.autonet.ca/driversource/...fm?storyID=7765

varmint

Not much information there, but thanks for the preview. For some reason, Canadian reporters always get the jump on us yanks.

BTW, that link didn't work for me. This one might: Link

jjpcat

1wiseguy: Thanks for the link. You didn't post the full URL though. Anyway, here is the right one.

http://www.autonet.ca/driversource/Stories.cfm?StoryID=7765

If they price this car at mid $30k (equal to $24k US dollar) in Canada, people in the states would have to pay at least 10% more. This seems to confirm some previous posts which said TSX will be priced $27-29k in the US.

Months ago, Acura said they would ship only 15k TSX to the US each year. Then how could they ship 4k to Canada? US sale number shall be at least 10X of that in Canada.

gee35coupe

That said they wanted to sell 40,000. Doable I think.

varmint

Last year Acura sold 60,764 units of the TL series. The RSX model sold 30,117 and the MDX 52,955. Given how well received these were, I think 40K is a somewhat optimistic number. The TX would have to almost completely replace the TL in that market slot for it to work.

gee35coupe

Is much smaller than the TL, is a 4 cylinder, and is different than anything Acura has sold here. It's gonna be marketed to a totally different customer. I think they are going after the Honda owner who wants something more than an Accord but not quite a TL. I mean if the Accord LX is the highest selling Accord I'm sure they can sway a few of the 200,000 or so yearly LX lease turn in's to look at the TSX.

varmint

"I think they are going after the Honda owner who wants something more than an Accord but not quite a TL."

And how big is that niche? The current TL is the step-up from the Accord. That's why I bought mine. Going to "not quite a TL" would bring an LX buyer into an EX Accord. I think the 4 cylinder difference isn't that great. People buy the LX 4 cyl because it's cheaper and gets better gas mileage. That isn't the case the TSX.

Now, if the TL vacates that position and moves further up the ranks... Then the TSX becomes the next logical step by default. But that's exactly what I meant when I wrote, "The TX would have to almost completely replace the TL in that market..."

How many IS300s does Lexus sell? How about the 325 and A4 small block?

gee35coupe

I've read. I don't know where that leaves the RL though.

varmint

We are on pretty much the same page, then. The TSX is going to have to replace the TL in its current position in the market. Which it should do when the TL moves upscale.

s852

The TSX is not an upgrade over an Accord EXV6 any more than an IS300 is an upgrade over a Camry XLE V6. They are for different buyers.
If they take the TL upmarket, they cannot take it very far because buyers will balk at paying the same price or more as a BMW 3 series or ES300.
Where are you reading that the TL is moving upmarket anyway?
I expect that the interior will be improved and it should have more power and features than an Accord, but I don't see the TL moving up into the RL's spot.

gee35coupe

But it is going to get the improvements you mention and a price increase. Temple of Vtec.

varmint

We're not suggesting that TL will move up to take the RL's place. The RL is a large sedan while the TL is a mid-size. What is happening is Acura is losing any prestige the name might hold by offering "bargain" luxury cars. Take a look at how Buick and Oldsmobile are perceived and you see the fate Acura needs to avoid.

Right now the TL is priced to compete with the Passat and Maxima. Including the Type S, it runs from $29-33K. The ES300 starts at pretty close to $33K and runs past $40K when you load one up. The LS runs from about $33K to $40K. Even the CTS starts above $30K and comes close to $40K fully loaded. The only company offering a lower priced base model is Infinity. They are not the people to be chasing.

Everything points toward Acura moving the TL up into the $30-36K range to better keep up with the competition. Naturally, the car will get more features and performance to justify the price increase. The TSX allows Acura to do that without losing the customers, like me, who bought an Acura for 27K.

varmint

"...the springs and gas-filled shocks on the TSX’s four-wheel double-wishbone suspension are actually 5 percent stiffer front and rear than the European and Japanese Accords... The bushings and front and rear antiroll bars are “just a little bit” softer to compensate for rough roads."

Most interesting part of the Autoweek article from my perspective. Doesn't sound like the Type R set-up from Japan, but it is tuned more aggressively than the European models. Somewhere in between I would assume.

phild_mason

I got an e-mail from Acura today. They finally updated and enhanced the TSX info. Funny, they left out the price.

Almost makes you think they haven't decided exactly where they are going to place it yet.

I am also a little ticked about the mileage. I think a 4 cyl with a 5 speed auto should do better than 29 on the highway. The TL gets that.

himiler

I would suspect that the TL's 3.2L doesn't have to rev as high as the 2.4L, and has a numerically lower final drive ratio.

gee35coupe

I've noticed the new K-series engines are not the misers that the old engines used to be. Our Civic Si drinks gas at a unCiviclike 30 mpg on the highway. I kinda miss my 1993 EX that was just as fast and could tickle 40 mpg sometimes.

chillenhonda

The milaege must have a lot to do with gearing. The Accord 5-speed is rated at 26/34, which is amazing for the power from the engine and weight/size of the car. Yet the CRV is rated at 23/26 I believe, which isnt impressive. Yes the poor aerodynamics on the higway (compared to Accord) and the 4-wheel drive system account for some, but 34 versus 26 seems drastic. The preliminary 22/29 for the TSX seems low also, considering the weight (should be about the same area as the Accord) and the 6-speed. I can understand the penalty for 40 more horsepower and a 7100rpm redline, but with the 6-speed I wouldve expected higway mpg to drop maybe 2 or 3 at most. The TL-S is rated at 19/29 with a 5-speed automatic and 3.2-liter V6. Whats up?

kyfdx

well, the gearing is a lot higher at highway speed for the automatics, than either the sixth or fifth gear in the manuals.. that accounts for a lot of it. As far as the CRV, I had a 99 with the 2.0 liter, 127 hp, and it got the same highway mileage as my 02 with automatic and 160 hp. With the CRV, its definitely the aerodynamics. Also, Hondas are getting bigger and heavier every year... I had a 1982 Accord, which regularly got 36MPG, but it was smaller than the current Civic, weighed less, and didn't have air..LOL

varmint

If you had a '99, you had 146 hp. The 96-98 models were the 127 hp years.

To be fair, the new engines have considerably more power and haul larger cars than previous Hondas. The engines are still good, it's the market demand for bigger cars that is setting things back. The current CR-V is actually bigger than most any "mid-size" model from the 80's (Blazer, Bronco, Cherokee, etc.).

When you compare Honda's current engines with those from other manufacturers, they typically come out very competitive (if not better). The automatic CR-V gets 22-26 mpg while the automatic Forester gets 21-26. This despite the fact that the Soob has a lower profile, is about 200 lbs lighter, has taller gearing, and both have AWD. The CR-V is even the cleanest in its class.

As stated above, the reason why the TSX doesn't get great mpg is the gearing. The gear ratios have been published on Acura.com. The manual tranny is way low. Obviously, it was geared for acceleration, not economy. The Accord is the one geared to save fuel.

dudleyr

There is no reason the highway mileage of the 6 speed manual on the TSX should be lower than the 5 speed of the Accord. The extra gear should mean that the highway revs are the same even if the lower gears are spaced closer. I suspect that the measures used to raise the horsepower must be detrimental to economy - too bad since the 4 from the Accord is quite peppy, and would be more so with a 6 speed. I even question how usefull the extra power is since it comes on high in the rev range. Unfortunately too many people just look at the number (horsepower) instead of just driving the car, so the manufactureres play into their hands.

FWIW the most fun car I ever owned was a 1980 Scirocco with 76 hp, manual steering, manual windows, manual tranny - and it had all of the options! It was also pretty quick - it helps to weigh under 2,000 lbs!

gee35coupe

Is geared shorter than the Accord even witht he 6 speed. I have a 03 EX-L stick that will cruise 80 in the low 3000's. The TSX will probably be a little shorter than that since it has a higher redline. Does the TSX's 4 still have balance shafts with the higher redline?

himiler

I'll bet it does have the balance shafts. Without 'em, it would be very lumpy, and that's unbecoming for a 'luxury' car.

My H22A4 has twin balance shafts and spins to 7400 (and higher) without any fuss.

gee35coupe

since the engine in the RSX doesn't have them but the Civic does.

bravedave

So, I wonder what the actual performance differences will be between an Accord EX-L, Accord V6, and TSX ? I'd be curious to see the test results in terms of ride, handling, acceleration, fuel efficiency, passing time, etc. Given these are all essentially different versions of the same product with different market targets, I think a breakdown of the real, testible differences would be very interesting.

varmint

Gear Ratios: TSX Automatic - TSX Manual

1st: 2.652 - 3.267
2nd: 1.517 - 1.880
3rd: 1.082 - 1.355
4th: 0.773 - 1.028
5th: 0.566 - 0.825
6th: ---- - 0.659

Reverse: 2.000 - 3.583
Final Drive: 4.440 - 4.760

Anybody have them for the Accord I4?

The CR-V and Element both use balance shafts, so I would assume that the TSX does.

jfavour

did a comparo when the current generation of GM mid-sized cars came out comparing their differences, IIRC. It was the Intrigue, Regal, and Grand Prix. I also would be interested to see a comparison of the 3 different configurations along those lines. It might be even better in the fall when the new TL comes out.

It is amazing to me how Honda/Acura can share basic designs without making the different models virtual duplicates, but GM and Ford can't. Good examples are MDX/Pilot, Accord/TL vs. Envoy/Trailblazer, Taurus/Sable.

fredvh

You may have answered this before but in reference to the final drive ratio: Is a higher number or a lower number better for fuel economy?
     When did you purchase your TL? How do you feel it compares to the 2003 Accord or did you not drive the 2003 Accord? Have you been completely satisfied with the TL? Mpg?

varmint

A lower number is better for fuel economy.

I bought my TL in February of 2001. The wife and I cross-shopped the Accord, I30, Maxima, and Passat. We both preferred the TL. My second choice would have been the Max, but Mrs. Varmint liked the Accord.

If the new Accord had been available, we'd have saved a few bucks and gotten an EX. With the TSX on the market, I may have pushed for that car, but the wife was more interested in luxury than sport. She wanted something quiet and comfortable.

We've had very complaints about the TL. The accelerator begs for more of my foot. I have to use cruise control to keep myself from speeding. Handling is good, but not great. The car is too heavy to dance with, but it's competent as a daily driver. I think it would have been dangerous for me to get the Type S.

My wife is the primary driver. She averages about 25-27 mpg in mixed driving. Her daily commute is about 40 miles on 40-50 mph town roads.

eco

From my little spreadsheet. Speed is in km/h (eh, those Canadians...)

1 2 3 4 5 6
3.267 1.88 1.355 1.028 0.825 0.659
10 1276 734 529 401 322 257
20 2551 1468 1058 803 644 515
30 3827 2202 1587 1204 966 772
40 5102 2936 2116 1605 1288 1029
50 6378 3670 2645 2007 1610 1286
60 7653 4404 3174 2408 1933 1544
70 8929 5138 3703 2809 2255 1801
80 10204 5872 4232 3211 2577 2058
90 11480 6606 4761 3612 2899 2316
100 12755 7340 5290 4014 3221 2573
110 14031 8074 5819 4415 3543 2830
120 15306 8808 6348 4816 3865 3087
130 16582 9542 6877 5218 4187 3345
140 17857 10276 7406 5619 4509 3602
150 19133 11010 7935 6020 4831 3859
160 20408 11744 8464 6422 5154 4117

himiler

That's pretty good mileage. She must have a light foot.

varmint

Himiler - The car is rated for 19-29, so I consider it average. I typically do better when I drive it. Well... except for those times when my foot answers the call..

muscarel

With a tire size of 215/50/17, and a redline of 7100 rpm, and 6-speed, the THEORETICAL speeds in each gear are:

1st - 35
2nd - 60
3rd - 83
4th - 110
5th - 137
6th - 171

Of course, you will not hit 171 in 6th gear, but that tells you that you will be at 2500 rpm at 60 mph, and 3300 at 80 mph.

The auto is:

1st - 46
2nd - 80
3rd - 112
4th - 157
5th - 214

60 mph happens at 2000 rpm, 80 mph at 2650

By the way, the acura site shows the curb weight for the 6 speed as 3230 lbs. Accords with the 5 speed and 4 cylinder weigh 3053 lbs (LX) or 3109 (EX).

kyfdx

Sorry.. I could swear I typed over that.. typo. I had a 98 CRV.. trust me, it was the slow one.. LOL. If it hadn't been a 5-speed, it would have been unbearable....
six-speeds: top gear is usually not any higher than fifth in a 5-speed. Its usually to make the ratios closer in the other gears, not to put in a higher gear... unlike the case when they started to put five-speeds in cars way back when.. that was more for fuel efficiency.

fredvh

You stated "We've had very complaints about the TL". What word did you leave out?

varmint

Sorry. That should have read, "We've had very few complaints about the TL". Lemme see... what are they...

1. My wife picked a dark green color and the thing constantly looks dirty. I warned her, but she swore she would wash it.

2. The rims stick out beyond the sidewalls of the tire. They've been scratched a few times while parallel parking.

3. The rear seats do not fold down. We have a CR-V ('99 with 5 speed) to serve as a "utility vehicle". However, it would be nice for those times when we want to impulse purchase something long.

4. I have to tilt the seat back farther than I like. The moonroof takes up too much space. This is true of most sedans, though. For reference, I'm 6'1". This is still comfortable (I love the seats), but it cuts into rear passenger space.

Sorry about the OT discussion, folks. Fredvh, send me an e-mail if you have any other questions.

estevef1

Off topic:
Shouldn't this thread be moved under the TSX thread given that category exists?

pat

Done! Thanks. :-)

iceman16

There are reviews all over the place. Best one I've seen is at Tower of VTEC, where Jeff has a 5-page (!) review.
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=75679