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
That means the "truer" competitors in the Audi A4 FWD, Saab 9-3 Linear, and Volvo S60 (lower-end trims). But that'll also mean, at minimum, the following:
Acura TL (remember Acura still bills it as their "performance sedan")
Honda Accord V6
Mazda6
Nissan Altima 3.5
Subaru WRX
Toyota Camry SE (well, maybe not!)
Volkswagen Passat (1.8t or V6 models)
And quite a few more.
Within those two major categories, I see other subsets. This is most apparent in the sporty side. Some define sporty with powerful engines like the Type S cars and several Infinities. Others do it with superior handling (BMW, Audi, etc.).
The TSX does it with handling, while the TL, Accord, Camry, and Altima compete only with their engines. A different focus. They might be the same "sporty" category, but they're a different sub-species. The WRX is a pure sport mobile with nothing that would make the driver feel like they're piloting a luxury vehicle, so I doubt that one will see much comparison. I think only the fully loaded Passat and Mazda 6 would be considered direct competition.
Ever notice how R&T has never driven a car they didn't like? Their squishy editorial style is why I am no longer a subscriber.
However, both you and I have been on this system long enough to see that many folks cross-shop a very interesting range of vehicles. E.g. one candidate is a big SUV, another is a sporty sedan. Thus they don't even necessarily get to those smaller distinctions within the sedan segment.
Obviously, at a relatively low production volume, Acura need not be concerned with them. But that doesn't mean there won't be quite a few folks who'll directly compare the TSX against the Accord V6's, 2003 TL's, etc. They'll look to buy what for them is the most vehicle for their money.
In a dealership, the consumer comparisons are the most important. But, here in these threads, I think the enthusiast perspective is more entertaining.
It doesn't matter. Driving wheels don't define the class of the car, or the targeted market. Subaru WRX and Audi S4 compete in different class, because of their price differential. However, some might contemplate getting Audi A4 1.8T over WRX and vice versa because they are much closer in pricing.
Depends on the person. Driving experience or bragging rights, may often affect the decision. BTW, TSX is more than just suspension upgrades. It has more features than Accord EXV6 as well, as it should be, being a car launched under a higher price class badge.
Acura figures 2/3 of TSX buyers will pick the automatic, which tells me they'd rather spend more $$ to have gizmos in the cabin rather than power underfoot.
You can't please everyone so they had to make a choice. Considering Honda could probably get about 250 peaky horses out of a 2.4L engine I think it was a wise move.
Compared with the other cars you mentioned, the TSX is down on torque. And, since so many people have taken pains to try and convince me that so few car buyers will wring their car out (negating the need for RWD instead of FWD), it only makes sense that more torque is a better thing than peak HP.
You can't have it both ways.
How do you figure that V6 is the key feature in a car? That said, that "key feature" would add cost, and push the price up. It will have to be priced at about $28K or so, instead of $26K. That is not something that Acura needs, or I want to appreciate a car that is more about finesse than sheer power.
"Acura figures 2/3 of TSX buyers will pick the automatic, which tells me they'd rather spend more $$ to have gizmos in the cabin rather than power underfoot."
TSX appears to have ample power (more than BMW 325 anyway). And gizmos, well, that's something anybody should expect from a premium badge.
"But wouldn't anyone that concerned with handling go with a RWD car?"
No. For the package that TSX promises, I would give up 1/10 of handling advantage (probably noticeable only on a serious race track and we shall see how TSX performs there as I'm sure some will be running around).
"Compared with the other cars you mentioned, the TSX is down on torque."
Think gearing. It may be down on torque at some points on the rpm scale, it still makes more power, and is aggressively geared to take that advantage. Measure 'g' forces for comparable cars against TSX and then let me know if the lacks-torque arguments holds a candle.
The TRUTH is that a FWD car can handle just fine on it's own. Again not every TSX or 3 series owner will be autocrossing the car. The TSX's handling will be exceptional I'm sure when appraised in the everyday cut and thrust of traffic.
The TRUTH is that the TSX is not "down on torque" since torque can be made up in the gearing I.E AccordV6 Auto vs Altima V6 auto. The Altima has more torque but the Accord's gearing still keeps it in the hunt in acceleration.
Vs it's contemporaries, the TSX will be right there in the hunt in everything except price.
Gismos? There better be plenty of gismos! This is a near-lux car, after all. If I'm paying $27K for a near-lux car, I'd better not be getting more sport than I can use on public roads without the refinement I can use. If you're looking for pure sport, you're barking up the wrong tree. Save yourself some money and buy a 6s or get more sport from an Evo.
Because of its lower torque (one of two ways to measure an engine's specific output), the TSX needs the tight-ratio 6spd to run with the pack. The 325 makes due with just five cogs, so your point about gearing and peak power is fairly moot. Or, in your experience, do most "luxury" car buyers like to do a whole bunch of manual shifting?
gee35 -- Newsflash: Fanatics buy alot of cars, and they tend to be brand-loyal, to a point.
varmint -- Mazda knows where its market is (V6, auto), which is why they've built 95% of the 6s' that in that configuration. If the demand for the manual car is high, then that's a a good thing for Mazda, isn't it?
Sorry, but I don't test-drive a cars' specs. If you know what you're looking at (engine output, transmission choice, weight, etc.), you can make reasonable conclusions about a car's dynamic personality.
"i think most people will know the advantages of the tsx compared to an accord v6." Really? Unless you're comparing the manual TSX to the auto Accord, exactly what are those advantages? Not space, price or power, I would think. With no compelling advantages over the Accord V6 (other than the handling, but as so many have pointed out in the defense of FWD, who's really going to drive a car that hard?) the automatic TSX will be a much tougher sell than the 6spd model.
Since there are (supposedly) so many sedans that the TSX competes with, I see nothing wrong with comparing apples to apples.
I said the V6 is a key feature in the Accord, not every car.
Huh!
The TSX offers dual-zone climate control (which is laughable in a car with a narrow cabin).
So does Accord! What is the set standard on the width of a car to have dual zone climate control? For that matter, how narrow is the TSX cabin compared to other compact to midsize sedans?
If someone were cross-shopping the auto TSX with a V6 Accord, how long do you think it would take for them to realize the price, power and space advantage offered by the Accord?
Not long. I've set my eyes already on TSX. I don't need 240 HP and a V6 to feel good about my purchase. If not the TSX, I will probably look more seriously into Accord EX (four cylinder) and save couple of grands over EXV6 (like I did over five years ago).
Because of its lower torque (one of two ways to measure an engine's specific output), the TSX needs the tight-ratio 6spd to run with the pack. The 325 makes due with just five cogs, so your point about gearing and peak power is fairly moot.
Interesting. BMW M3 and M5 need "close ratio" 6-speed as well while 325 does it with five.
Or, in your experience, do most "luxury" car buyers like to do a whole bunch of manual shifting?
Nope. But it was you who raised the issue of Acura offering 66% of TSX with auto tranny! Those who can't shift or have issues with, I hope don't overlook the "impracticality" (if that is a word) of getting manual transmission.
If you don't need a V6 (or RWD) to feel good about your purchase, do you need all the frou-frou in the TSX's cabin?
And yes, "impracticality" is a word.
I'm surprised that you called them "peaky engines".
If you don't need a V6 (or RWD) to feel good about your purchase, do you need all the frou-frou in the TSX's cabin?
Five and a half years ago, when I purchased my first Honda, I could have gotten Accord LXV6 for $800 less than I paid for the nicely equipped Accord EX. I would still go the same route, and like I mentioned earlier, the replacement to my Accord could be Accord EX, or TSX. Honestly, I don't need xenon and upgraded stereo, but I like side curtain airbags, stability control, and moon-roof with leather seats.
Now, even if I decide to go cheaper and get the Accord EX, I will still get much of the frills, but not the overall package that TSX offers. And I expect an Acura to be better equipped than Honda. For that reason, sometimes RSX seems out of place to be in the Acura lineup, but then, it is the entry level vehicle for the badge, and some overlap will occur in the marketing strategy. However, TSX is not entry level. Expecting a stripped model coming in the name of near luxury lineup would be a disgrace, IMO, for Acura.
As for the engines in the M3 and M5 being "peaky" or not, any engine that makes the majority of its power over 5500rpm certainly qualifies as "high-strung" at the very least.
"Mazda knows where its market is (V6, auto), which is why they've built 95% of the 6s' that in that configuration. If the demand for the manual car is high, then that's a a good thing for Mazda, isn't it?"
Lemme get this straight. When Acura offers 30% of production as manuals, they do it because people are more concerned with gizmos than power. When Mazda offers a paltry 5% of production as manuals, it's because they know their audience. They're so smart. Yet, in the very next sentence you tell us that they misjudged demand for the manual.
I think you need to make up your own mind and stop posting knee-jerk reactions to whatever Robertsmx is writing.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?news/ae_news_story.php?id=34849
Thank you, I told you so, thank you, thank you.
That is, unless, it drives funky, but I can't imagine it would if it's making its way onto the NSX.
Previously I had been concerned it would be a float boat. It handled very well. it shifted as smooth as I ever remembered by 1992 Prelude.
If the TSX has a touch more handling and some nicer interior bits, it will make a fine auto. Probably for $4k more!
Funny though, when I was done testing the accord, the salesman all but insisted I take a Civic Si out. 10 years agao this would have been my thing. Now, it seemed like a kid's car. If I am going banzai sport mode, I'll get a WRX.
The salesman's point - hey - its $5k less! Si compared to Accord.
Not biting.
Same argument as Accord 4 v. TSX -- its $4k less. (EX 4 cy with leather is about $23k). Are you going to bite?
I guess we will all know when we get to test drive the TSX.
Later...AH
It offers similar performance, handling, and features found in these other 4 cylinder front drivers.
As for the TSX vs. Accord debate, I think it's great that the consumer can pick the one that best suits him/her. Sedan or coupe, auto or manual, 5 or 6 speed, firmer or softer, more refined or higher strung...what suits you?
Unlike the TSX, the 6 isn't pretending to be a luxury car: it doesn't require the addition of fancy bits to to appeal to buyers. Priced at $26K+, the TSX has an uphill struggle ahead of it.
It's sad how Acura had to offer two warmed-over cars (the TSX and RSX) in an effort to replace a good one (the Integra).
Based on the above criteria, before the TSX, my choice automatically narrowed to ONE car: the Passat 1.8T. Given some concern over the VW's reliability (coilpack recalls, etc.), I was overjoyed to hear about the upcoming TSX. It is now the only other car that meets my criteria, and it recalls fond memories of my 1995 GS-R of several years past.
So, yes, the appeal of the TSX is probably relatively narrow, but I happen to fit the target audience that would consider the TSX. And Acura is betting that there are 15,000 others like me. I'll certainly give it a serious test-look when the time comes.
The TSX is not an Accord Type-S. It's a car for people who are willing to pay a 20% premium over an Accord with 5% more performance, while thinking they're getting a car thats 50% better.
Badge engineering is a wonderful thing, wouldn't you agree? It sure keeps the marketing types busy.
I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I think perhaps you didn't realize that you don't have to get the sport package on the '6! In fact, since Acura isn't offering much in the way of options on the TSX, the '6 is your better choice for tayloring your look and ride quality.
Maybe if by "boy racer" you meant "better"... :-P
Honda offers no factory options on it's cars. They are all dealer added accessories. So we really don't know what's going to be available in the way of decklid spoilers and foglighta and such. I do know that there is a Euro Accord with a very aggressive spoiler package in japan.
Absent its feature/pricepoint (value?) ratio, Acura doesn't have much else to distinguish itself in the market.
Having value as a strength is not a bad thing. Any automaker could definitely use it and then I will have tough time figuring out my choice. Until then, Acura Rules!
As for the engines in the M3 and M5 being "peaky" or not, any engine that makes the majority of its power over 5500rpm certainly qualifies as "high-strung" at the very least.
By your measure, BMW 325 has a peaky engine as well since it delivers 184 HP at 6000 rpm. While BMW M3 can deliver 270+ HP at 5500 rpm, it has a peaky engine (must have 6-speed!).
Going by your logic in an earlier post, this is an illustration of how you perceive things,
Accord EX makes 160 HP at 5500 rpm, so it does not have a peaky engine.
TSX makes 170 HP at 5500 rpm, 180 HP at 6000 rpm (about as much as 325 at the same rpm), but it is a peaky engine because it delivers maximum power at 6800 rpm.
Accord EX gets by with 5-speed manual transmission so it has a nice spread of torque across the rev band.
Accord V6 and TSX need 6-speed because of the engines' peaky nature.
Unlike the TSX, the 6 isn't pretending to be a luxury car
I'm not surprised that a BMW enthusiast would look at TSX as a luxury car (or a wannabe). :-)
But it is not. If you just open your eyes, you should see no pretense, just that TSX is appropriately equipped for the near luxury car class that it targets.
It's sad how Acura had to offer two warmed-over cars (the TSX and RSX) in an effort to replace a good one (the Integra).
Warmed over cars that provide warmth are always welcome. I don't dig for excuses, I appreciate cars for what they deliver. I see no reason in getting desperate and try to prove that BMW M3 is just a warmed over 316ti!
And FYI, RSX = Integra!
And, TSX does not replace Integra!
iceman16
The TSX-S will be a hybrid.
I would love to see that happen. It is also something I have pointed out as a possibility several times in these forums.
I'm all for great mileage but not at the potentially greater expense of battery replacement.
Just curious,
Steve
What do you think the RSX is? At least the Integra had a good Civic platform to be based upon.
Again, Integra has always shared the platform with Civic. Changing name from Integra does not change facts. It still uses an excellent platform, one that is tight and well tuned in the RSX, and, IMO, delivers a much better driving experience than the older generation did (AKA Integra).
The TSX is not an Accord Type-S. It's a car for people who are willing to pay a 20% premium over an Accord with 5% more performance, while thinking they're getting a car thats 50% better.
Point # 1: TSX has the same chassis tuning as JDM Accord 24S (equivalent of "Type-S"). So, it is basically JDM Accord Type-S. However, there is no TSX/Accord 24S equivalent in Europe at this time.
Point # 2: How did you arrive at 20% premium over Accord? I see no Accord, with an MSRP of $21,500, equipped with near luxury features and a fantastic sport tuned chassis setup (based on the reviews, ofcourse). May be you know something many of us don't. Enlighten us.
Point # 3: How do you figure performance in terms of percentages? How much performance improvement is $45K BMW 330 over $26K TSX? (BTW, that would be 70% premium).
Point # 4: You read people's thoughts? And better yet, in percentages! Amazing.
FYI, The TSX does indeed fill the gap left by the dearly departed Integra sedan. While the content and refinement of the TSX are a quantum leap ahead of that found in the Integra, you'll find the only other real difference is one of scale.
"Acura rules." You've just made a brand-image consultant very happy.
Replacement costs may not be "mega-bucks" whenever that happens. Warranty on the battery, in Civic Hybrid and Insight, is 8 years/80K miles (I think), and expired warranty does not mean battery replacement. So, the batteries should last much longer than the warranty period. And whenever the time comes, it may not cost as much, especially since the potential of mass production exists some time in the near future.
That said, there may not be batteries in future hybrids either! Honda FCX and Dual Note apparently use Ultra-Capacitor to store charge, not batteries.
I disagree. RSX has everything that Integra delivered, with a touch of refinement AND more power.
FYI, The TSX does indeed fill the gap left by the dearly departed Integra sedan. While the the content and refinement of the TSX are a quantum leap ahead of that found in the Integra, you'll find the only other real difference is one of scale.
I could say that TSX actually fills the void left by Vigor/2.5TL, which would be more appropriate. TSX shares global midsize platform with Accord, like the Vigor did. That said, the gap that the departure of Integra sedan created was at the low end of the price spectrum, not where TSX is supposed to reside.
Assume that Acura decides to squeeze in the J30A (3.0 liter V6 used in Accord) into TSX to deliver 240 HP and that it would add 100 lb. to the curb weight. So now, TSX/V6 w/6-speed weighs 3325 lb.
A conventional (mechanical) AWD system is adopted, and that it adds 200 lb. So now, a 240 HP TSX/V6 w/AWD, 6-speed weighs about 3525 lb. This curb weight would be comparable to Audi A4 1.8T/Quattro (albeit with more power). And the car could cost about $30K ($2K added for V6, $2K for AWD).
Case II:
Acura retains the K24A (2.4 liter I-4 used in TSX) to get the 200 horses. TSX w/6-speed weighs 3225 lb. 100 HP electric motor(s), let us assume that it would add 75 lb., are added to power the rear wheels. Energy storage system (batteries or whatever) add another 125 lb and overall cost of the IMA system adds $6K. Now, we have TSX w/6-speed, weighing about 3450 lb. w/AWD and 300 HP for about $32K.
Assuming that the second case keeps the difference, between the two approaches to get AWD setup, transparent, I see no reason to even consider case I.
Here's the URL:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/?news/ae_news_story.php?id=34849
Good one? You do realize you're talking about a FWD performance car with the 2nd most peaky engine in the business. Aren't those the very things you are complaining about in the TSX.
Add to that the high price tag attached to the worst interior ever sold by a luxury brand. Yeah, it was a great car, but it was a crappy Acura.