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
Honda/Acura's site says 40.0 feet.
http://hondanews.com/forms/acura/TSX/seetext?2003010558230
However, Ford is using the Mazda6 chassis for the next Mondeo. It isn't codeveloped- Ford is using Mazda's design. Does this hurt your confidence in Ford or raise your confidence in Mazda?
I have high, high hopes for the Mazda3, and see no reason why it too can't be a competitor to the TSX. Price has nothing to do with worth.
Hopefully that's not a misprint copy from the wall-to-wall rating like the way CR measures.
I also like some rwd cars' short front overhang or round-off front corners. They keep the wall-to-wall size nearly as small as the curb-to-curb. Unless this is a misprint, the Mercedes C-class got the same 35ft figure for both!(per CR)
I still remember how the quicker-ratio steering system upgraded from the Audi 4000 to Audi Coupe fastback actually shrinks the turning diameter by almost 3 ft down to about 31.5 ft(curb to curb)! Audi didn't bother to worry about the fender clearance & just let the quicker-ratio rack stretch the wheel angle naturally. I like this Audi's "sloppy-ness". I guess having no transversely-mounted-engine got this advantage.
Acura is probably making the fender room for some giant-size tires? I don't get it. Even the double-wishbone 103in-wheelbase(only 2in less than TSX's) Civic sedan needs only 32.8ft curb-to-curb.
The TSX turning circle is wide. But it's hard to say exactly why. For additional comparison, the Accord V6 Coupe turns in 36.4 ft, but the MT version (with bigger tires) turns in 38.8 ft. All sedan versions turn in 36.9 ft. The worst I've personally driven was a 2000 Altima (37.4 ft). So, that'll be one of the things that bothers me about the TSX.
Like I mentioned earlier, going from TL to TL Type-S increases the turning radius (lock-to-lock steering wheel turns are down). The best way to figure this out would be to look at the VGS (Variable Gear Steering) system used in a variant of S2000 sold in Japan.
Sure you can think of them competing (and they would, likely on a race track, just like Civic and Protege run around the same track as BMW 3-series in Touring Class), but when it comes to competing in the market place, I don't see people cross shopping TSX or 3-series against Mazda3.
It also lacks memory seats, that have been available in the TL/TL-s for the past several years. This would be a biggie for couples whose heights differ by quite a bit. Again features that were available in cars like Passat etc., for the past several years.
I don't think it has a reverse-tilt-down for the passenger side mirror to aid in parking, un-like the current TL/TL-s.
Power seats, memory seats etc., are mandatory features in the "near-luxury" category, in my estimation. I would definitely think that the version coming in the following years, would sport those features.
Later...AH
Apparently, since 1990, the Mazda 323(Protege) was described by CAR as "drives/handles like a BMW". Today this legend live on...Mazda6...
BMW didn't seem to mind calling their own car "323" since beginning of the era(God knows when).
Even when people trade in their Mazda 323 Protege(as the 1990 model is called) for a BMW 323i, they don't just sound similar, they also drive similar, in a way. So they're still driving the "same" car. ;-)
& w/ the Euro help, Mazda's ride comfort is catching up too, sort of. & having just the track performance is not enough. Only cars w/ good-enough compromise between steering-feel/handling AND ride comfort deserve to really compete w/ the 3-series sedan w/ the comfy non-sport suspension. S2000 & Viper would be far from qualified.
A stupid 3-car comparison test conducted by MT included $30K cars - Mecedes C220, Lexus ES300, and a Chrysler LHS? Yeah, they all cost the same, so they're comparable. We're not that kind of car shoppers. & the conclusions from this magazine - "If you need the room, LHS would be your choice." Duh, thanks for insulting our intelligence.
I think it's easier for some one to cross shop something less expensive than more expensive. & many people already found the Mazda3's interior more attractive than Mazda6 & RX-8! I do expect the 3 to be available in a relatively expensive/luxury form sooner or later, as this is the only small-turning-circle roomy sedan they're making.
Lexus IS300 is 1 exception, but this car was designed for the long-leg Euro market & not for us in the beginning. Just check out this cluttered after-thought parking-light side marker, required only for N.A.
Even the base Jetta's got it! That's right, even w/ manual seats. & the Jetta GLX got memory for the driver.
I find pwr seat w/o memory idiotic! When trying out this '95 Maxima, the quiet motor moved the seat so slowly that I could hardly tell if the seat was moving! It took forever. I might as well hand crank the manual seat.
I remember Lexus LS400 charged about $600 just for the memory feature alone! Even Japanese cars offer "black mailing" price.
As for memory on the driver side - yeah, I'd like to have it. The power seats in my Accord and Ody are slow. Plus, I'm 5-11 and the DW is 5-3 (on a good day!!). We're constantly moving the seat.
As for the turning radius, the 40' is not a major issue here in Boston. When banging a ueey, use of the sidewalk is permitted!! :-)
Power seats, memory seats etc., are mandatory features in the "near-luxury" category, in my estimation.
You didn't qualify if these features all-important features for you should be standard or optional? When a car has enough features to justify its class (in this case, near luxury price), it is easier to point out what it doesn't have, compared to what it does. Let me do the harder thing, and throw BMW 325 into the mix, which likely has your approval of being a near-luxury car. IMO, the only near-luxury thing about BMW 325 is its starting price tag.
Seating: Leather is a must have in near-luxury car.
325: Vinyl (I would have called it leatherette, but Edmund's uses the word Vinyl).
TSX: Leather
Power Seat: At least Driver Side should be standard. Passenger side, if you think, should be.
325: Optional/Possibly optional
TSX: Standard/NA
Heated Seats: Must have? Well, if passenger side power seats are must have, this should be too!
325: Optional
TSX: Standard
CD changer: It is an optional feature on economy cars today.
325: Optional
TSX: Standard
Moon roof: Must have
325: Optional
TSX: Standard
Auto-Dimming Mirrors: Must have
325: Optional
TSX: Standard
Seat Memory Settings:
325: Optional
TSX: NA
Xenon Headlamps
325: Optional
TSX: Standard
Wheels:
325: P205/55/R16
TSX: P215/50/R17
Let us not forget the use of cheaper MacPherson Struts in BMW 325 compared to sophisticated double wishbones in Acura TSX, as himiler would point out. ;-)
I would pay more for a car without a moonroof.
Now, passenger side power seat, that is something I would have never used. If moon roof could have problems, so could power seat motors, and everything that is electric has a potential to die anytime. And they all add to the price, and weight, don't they?
The only time the passenger side seats may have been moved back and forth a few times, but only if I was carrying something large in the rear seat or if I was vacuuming the car (in which case, I would rather have a quick release motion of the seats instead of the few seconds that it takes if it were powered as it is on the driver side in my Accord).
Just making a point on hunter001 comment on things lacking in TSX that he expects in a near luxury car. But then luxury is more about things that you don't need!
I expect some features are left out simply so they have things to add later on. When the design's "newness" starts to wear off, they can add the features to freshen the package. For example, when the MDX was first released, Acura claimed that VSA wold be redundant since it had the VTM4 AWD system. Many people asked about it since the M-Class, RS300, and X5 all had something similar. Now that the Pilot has been introduced and MDX sales have plateau'd, Acura has added VSA. Honda/Acura are not the only ones to do this.
While there are some who dislike the moonroof, there are far more who want them. It's the #1 complaint in the Pilot forums and was high on the list for the last generation CR-V. It's one of the most common aftermarket modifications done to economy and used cars and you'll be hard pressed to find a luxury car without one.
In fact, almost every luxury item in any car, can be done away with and we could find justifications for not having those. But not even giving a power seat option for near-luxury customers, will not offer a "near-luxury" experience to buyers, when the Honda Accord EX V6 next door, offers those features and a more powerful V6 engine for less money !! A lot of us are acting like unpaid Honda marketing people, which I find laughable. One needs to acknowledge the weaknesses as well as the strengths of any product and not be blinded to all the weaknesses. It is your hard-earned money.
A while back, somebody mentioned the interior space in a Honda Civic EX vs the TSX and mentioned that the size is comparable at 88cu Ft for the Civic EX vs 91 cu.Ft for the TSX. True. But the TSX is taller inside, with a headroom of 37.8front/37.3rear while the Civic EX has a headroom of 38.0front/36.3rear. Thus the Civic in fact has more room than this Accord based product (TSX), if one factors out the taller interior.
Bottomline ? This vehicle is fairly identical as far as interior room is concerned, with the Honda Civic, with the Civic EX being near identical and the Civic LX being a little roomier than the TSX (LX does not have moonroof).
I consider this vehicle, similar to what Infiniti bought over to the US as the G20 a few years back. Very good handling vehicle (tuned in the Nurburgring track in Germany) with a lot of pluses but with a 4-banger and Front-wheel-drive. Luckily they withdrew it from the market, before the losses really piled up.
Later...AH
As far as room....Not really on my list. But when you look at it another way, does that mean the TSX is small or does it meant the Civic is one tidy little package?
If one is willing to pay for goodies, Acura will offer them all, and more, in TL. At $26K, it would be expecting too much to offer all that BMW asks $35K for.
No true BMW purist will cross-shop the TSX
BMW purists may be close-minded. And there will be many who will and have figured out what their money is worth.
But not even giving a power seat option for near-luxury customers, will not offer a "near-luxury" experience to buyers, when the Honda Accord EX V6 next door, offers those features and a more powerful V6 engine for less money!!
Are you talking about BMW 325, or Acura TSX? TSX atleast has power seat for the driver, standard, unlike the 325 where you must pay for the 'must haves in near luxury car'.
A while back, somebody mentioned the interior space in a Honda Civic EX vs the TSX and mentioned that the size is comparable at 88cu Ft for the Civic EX vs 91 cu.Ft for the TSX. True. But the TSX is taller inside, with a headroom of 37.8front/37.3rear while the Civic EX has a headroom of 38.0front/36.3rear. Thus the Civic in fact has more room than this Accord based product (TSX), if one factors out the taller interior.
You factored out hip room (TSX beats even Accord, Camry and Altima in that area) and shoulder room to make an argument. That said, if one can't fit inside a TSX, will have tougher time fitting inside BMW 3-series, Audi A4 and Passat (a car very comparable in interior dimensions to TSX). These people would be better off in Accord (and we wonder why America gets the large version), Camry, Altima and even Mazda6.
And oh, the advantages of MacPherson struts. You pay for having double wishbones (and 5-links to boot at the rear) somewhere. When automaker chooses to use them they are branded as going cheap (except BMW as many would suggest), and when they are willing to run with compromises of a more sophisticated double wishbone setup, the compromise becomes the bottom line. Interesting, isn't it?
I consider this vehicle, similar to what Infiniti bought over to the US as the G20 a few years back. Very good handling vehicle (tuned in the Nurburgring track in Germany) with a lot of pluses but with a 4-banger and Front-wheel-drive. Luckily they withdrew it from the market, before the losses really piled up.
The only valid comparison between G20 and TSX would be proximity of price tag and that both were FWD. The similarities end there.
This is a fancy Accord from Europe.
Whoa there ! Who is talking about 35K BMWs ? Pop into your neighborhood Honda Store and you will find those there for less money !! Additionally, you will also find a 240HP kick-azz V6 with 200+ lbs/ft of turbine smooth torque, also for "less money".
Are you talking about BMW 325, or Acura TSX? TSX atleast has power seat for the driver, standard, unlike the 325 where you must pay for the 'must haves in near luxury car'.
I am talking about the TSX. The TSX does not offer a power seat for the passenger, even though the cheaper Accord next door offers it. The BMW offers it for more money but the TSX cannot be equipped with one, even if one wants to pay for it. If you need it, you can get 8-way power seats for the driver and passenger, with 3 position memory for seats and mirrors with reverse gear-tilt-down, in the BMW 3 series. You cannot get passenger power seats in the Acura, whether you want to pay for it or not !! It is not available for any money. Period.
You factored out hip room (TSX beats even Accord, Camry and Altima in that area) and shoulder room to make an argument.
I did not factor out hip room or shoulder room. Factoring in head-room, hip-room and shoulder room, the TSX is less roomy than a Honda Civic. Hope that clears up any confusion.
I really like that Honda is retaining the Double-wishbones for all their cars (till recently) and that they have retained that in their Accord (and the TSX). That does not mean that super-premium marques like Porsche and BMW - known all over the world for their handling and tractability - have got it all wrong when they equipped their cars with the suspensions they have. Let us not go overboard with "paper features". Hell, even when Mario Andretti tested a bunch of cars including the Porsche 911, the Acura NSX, one of the Ferraris, the Viper, the Corvette, the Lotus Espirit etc., the Porsche came out tops, beating out the NSX, which in turn beat out the Ferrari and so on. Mario (being Italian) really wanted to recommend the Ferrari (with double wishbones all around) but did not, since driving at 10/10ths, the Porsche (with struts and Porsche's unique multi-link in the rear) stomped all over the other cars, for handling. So let us step back from "paper performance" and go by real world behavior of the various suspension setups.
The G20 and the TSX are similar concepts. Both cars from Japanese companies, tuned for handling. Both built in Japan. Both with 4-bangers. Both with front-wheel-drive. Years back when the G20 was introduced, 140HP was "okay" (nothing great, since the then slightly larger Nissan Altima had 150HP)....nowadays, 200HP is "okay" (but with cheaper Honda Accords sporting 240HP, 200HP is nothing great). The G20 was a failure, even though a lot of magazines praised it initially when it first came out. Time will tell if the TSX will meet the same fate. I truly hope not, since it does meet the needs of a lot of consumers (the G20 did too!!).
Later...AH
I am saying this in general terms, as I am probably an exception - usually preferring the smaller car (to a point) all other things being equel.
I will concede that the TSX looks better (but is still not drop dead gorgeous), but I can't see how my car looks while I am driving it, and am way to old to be impressing the teenagers, or the neighbors for that matter.
For me the perfect TSX would be about 500 lbs lighter, and have the same drivetrain as the 4-cyl Accord. This would give it a better power to weight ratio, would be less high strung, and would use less fuel than the Accord instead of more. It would also be more tossable.
Later...AH
I equate tossability with lightness. Also, I suppose you must be aware that both of these cars (TSX and Accord) are built on the same platform by the same manufacturer, with identical suspension under-pinnings, with one being lighter than the other ??
About "economy car slow", it is all relative. Nowadays, there are Dodge Neons that are faster than "7 seconds" and cost less than 20K and offer 215HP and 245 lbs/ft of torque. In this day and age, 200HP is almost "economy car", if one wants to use that argument. I could care less about these numbers, frankly.
The selling point of the TSX is not power or 7 secs 0-60. The selling point is handling. The selling point of the Infiniti G20 was also handling, after being tuned in the famed Nurburgring track in Germany. But it did not sell enough, unfortunately. Infiniti, for folks who are unaware, is to Nissan what Acura is to Honda.
Later...AH
The TSX "on paper", does have an exceptionally good 4-cylinder engine, however. It has a very broad torque curve too. Nobody builds 4-cylinder engines better than Honda. But I really wish Honda had developed a small RWD Sedan based off the S2000 and equipped with a small V6/I6.
Later...AH
Whoa there ! Who is talking about 35K BMWs ? Pop into your neighborhood Honda Store and you will find those there for less money !!
Comparing Used Car prices to New Car prices now? FYI, a year or two down the road, TSX will also be available at used car lots, and not with its new car price tag.
Additionally, you will also find a 240HP kick-azz V6 with 200+ lbs/ft of turbine smooth torque, also for "less money".
For most people, that will work. More people will buy Accord EXV6 than would go for TSX. Those, who want a sport sedan in a well-appointed package (Accord EXV6 may not be less money than TSX), with six speed manual transmission, TSX will be more car.
I am talking about the TSX. The TSX does not offer a power seat for the passenger, even though the cheaper Accord next door offers it.
But the Accord doesn't offer a better audio system, xenon or sport package. If you go by feature list, TSX will win over Accord. But if passenger side power seat is what moves you, then yes, TSX doesn't seem to have it, although Accord EXV6 does. That said, if I were to look at BMW 325, I would have to pay a $2K premium. Even then I get vinyl seats, no driver side and passenger side power seat. BMW wants more money for these basic features that you expect in a near-luxury car.
If you need it, you can get 8-way power seats for the driver and passenger, with 3 position memory for seats and mirrors with reverse gear-tilt-down, in the BMW 3 series. You cannot get passenger power seats in the Acura, whether you want to pay for it or not !! It is not available for any money. Period.
I can't get 200 HP in BMW 325 for more money, can I?
I did not factor out hip room or shoulder room. Factoring in head-room, hip-room and shoulder room, the TSX is less roomy than a Honda Civic. Hope that clears up any confusion.
It would be nice to back up your claim. Still, 91 cu. ft is greater than 88 cu. ft. if that is something we must prove.
I really like that Honda is retaining the Double-wishbones for all their cars (till recently) and that they have retained that in their Accord (and the TSX). That does not mean that super-premium marques like Porsche and BMW - known all over the world for their handling and tractability - have got it all wrong when they equipped their cars with the suspensions they have.
I just mentioned a fact. People like to associate MacPherson Struts with cheapness. Scroll back a few pages in this thread and figure out who would. I understand performance is more about tuning than simply the type of suspension used. The problem, some will try to discredit certain things either way. I'm sure you realize that double wishbone layout creates a packaging issue and is not the best choice to increase the cabin volume. Don't you?
Let us not go overboard with "paper features". Hell, even when Mario Andretti tested a bunch of cars including the Porsche 911, the Acura NSX, one of the Ferraris, the Viper, the Corvette, the Lotus Espirit etc., the Porsche came out tops, beating out the NSX, which in turn beat out the Ferrari and so on. Mario (being Italian) really wanted to recommend the Ferrari (with double wishbones all around) but did not, since driving at 10/10ths, the Porsche (with struts and Porsche's unique multi-link in the rear) stomped all over the other cars, for handling.
I'm sure you're talking about the article published in R&T a few years ago. Well, the Ferrari wasn't even close, and you might want to read again about the NSX versus Carrera 4S comment of yours, because I remember it, very well.
The G20 and the TSX are similar concepts. Both cars from Japanese companies, tuned for handling. Both built in Japan. Both with 4-bangers. Both with front-wheel-drive.
Okay.
Years back when the G20 was introduced, 140HP was "okay"
Is it? The last G20, I believe, was released in 1998. How much horsepower did Integra GS-R have, in 1992?
nowadays, 200HP is "okay"
Where does 184 HP stand today?
It is also lighter than the TSX by around 150+ lbs and hence should be more tossable, even though it is dimensionally larger.
This is really a good one. While your opinion may be based on comparison between BMW 325 beating BMW M3 in terms of tossability due to being 200 lb. lighter, I doubt Accord Sedan stands any chance of being more tossable than TSX.
Under pinning is one thing, tuning it is another. Accord has a touring suspension, while the chassis in the TSX is even more stiff (that is where the additional weight comes from) besides sports suspension and a different steering setup as well.
The selling point of the TSX is not power or 7 secs 0-60. The selling point is handling. The selling point of the Infiniti G20 was also handling
Based on the initial reviews, and my observation, TSX's selling point is more than just handling. It is its chassis and composure, the drive train and the feature content for the price. At $24K, G20 couldn't deliver much.
Which is why Honda will sell hundreds of thousands of Accords, but only expects to sell a few thousand TSXs. The Accord will meet the majority of the market demand. With that covered, Acura can exploit a small niche and offer something that fans of the older, smaller, more nimble Accords have missed in recent offerings.
I expect the long-travel-suspension TSX to ride more comfy than the 3-series w/ sport suspension, which got shorter travel than the regular suspension. & the refinement, such as quietness, should be on par w/ the Beemer. Unlike the G20. Again, I expect the E46 Beemer's steering feedback to be still way ahead.
In '98, the G20(II) w/ beam rear got criticized by CR as having worse ride/handling compromise than the G20(I).
The TSX with the 4-cylinder and 200HP and 166lbs/ft of torque engine, with the Navigation system and 5-speed Auto, is expected to sell for $29,000. The Honda costs less money and we are not comparing the TSX with the 4-cylinder Honda Accord (which would have taken another $2500 off the price mentioned above). If the TSX sells for MSRP (as I expect it would), there is a big spread right there. Is that clear enough ?
Also another one of those gems about the 184hp in the 325 not being able to be upgraded, I laughed out aloud. Have you heard of other engines like the 3.0L I-6 (330) and the 3.2L I-6 (M3) from BMW ? LOL. We would not be able to upgrade the 2.4L 4-cylinder engine in the TSX, can we ? Unless we upgrade to larger vehicles like the TL/RL etc. LOL. But then moving to a larger vehicle, defeats the whole purpose of a smaller-than-US-accord-euro-accord, doesn't it ? With the BMW, you can get the same vehicle with a lot more engine/power options, ranging from a budget buy (325i) to a world beater (M3) with an SMG transmission.
A clarification on the space in the Civics....All Civic sedans (including DX, LX, Hybrid etc - in fact most of the Civics sold) excluding the EX, have more interior room than the TSX, after factoring in the headroom, shoulder room, legroom and every other parameter we can think of. The Honda Civic EX has a whisker less room, because it is less taller in the inside than the TSX. If both the EX and the TSX had the same interior height, the Honda Civic EX would also have had more interior room than the TSX. Hope that clears up any confusion.
Basically, most people are interested in a TSX, since they assume that it is slightly smaller and sportier than the US-spec Accord. But they would rethink a bit if they knew that they were getting a vehicle whose interior size is smaller than a Honda Civic for more money than the top of the line Accord EX V6. JMHO.
Much as I enjoy posting these things, I guess I will refrain from further posts on this issue again. Basically folks who spend their money have to make an informed decision; as opposed to a decision based on partial information. I am sure whoever buys these vehicles would be a happy customer, either way !
Later...AH
So the BMW 3-series' base sport seats are ideal, 'cause both manual seats got enormous varieties of adjustability! Too bad the less-comfortable sport suspension has to be included in the 2wd 325i w/ these seats.
So if I'm getting a BMW, I'd get the least-expensive 325i(to avoid the sport suspension) 2wd(to avoid the larger turning circle & etc.) and invest another $1500 just to order one manual cloth sport driver seat(hopefully the pwr lumbar can be included for an additional cost) from the parts dept. I wouldn't invest further $ for the passenger seat. The original driver seat will remain new in the storage until the car is sold again as "a used car w/ an un-used driver seat". But when extending the sport seat's super-cool thigh-length adjustment, I found the support a little less than perfect 'cause the lateral support didn't get extended! Anyway, another choice for any car is to put a long-thigh super-supportive Monaco seat for around $600 including custom installation, but the seat height/angle got only a small range of adjustments & need tools to do it. So the initial height/angle had to be chosen carefully. If the side airbag is built into the OEM seat, then it has to leave the car altogether, too.
I feel sorry for those "typical" 3-series buyers that spend all that $ on those optional head-room-rubbing moonroof & leather pwr less-comfy-non-sport seats, which lack lateral support & thigh-length adjustment, plus it doesn't EVEN got a thigh-height adjustment! No wonder DC doesn't feel embarrassed offering a cheap-flimsy-feeling crank for the thigh-height adjustment in the base new C-class, 'cause even a loaded 330i w/o sport package don't got one! W/ the pwr seat motors, 2 rear passengers in a 3-series sedan can only extend their feet forward under the front seats in a crooked way, & there's not even room left under the front seats for the 3rd passenger's feet.
That C220, which I've been only playing around its manual passenger seat, eventually needed a $2000 repair on this non-memory driver seat's pwr feature. & the non-manufacturer's extended warranty is NOT covering it! Once again, pwr seats suck! & being single, I don't even care about the expensive memory feature.
Another nice thing about manual seats is that you can count the number of notches or turns & return to its original seating position. W/ non-memory pwr seats, you can't!
A steel manual tilt roof like 924/Scirocco(I) doesn't slide & probably doesn't take up the head room. & it's better than nothing, 'cause the hot air can be pushed right out over the driver's head by the strong A/C's comfy draft.
A glass roof is nice too when closed, for viewing the sky scrapers quietly & comfortably when the hot sun's not around. However, when tilted to vent the hot air out, the hot sun beams also shoot in. A sliding vented shade, whether the vents are more forward or backward, helps to block most of the sun beams but still allows the baking effect to flow into the cabin when the roof is shut. The more forward-located vent opening may direct the sun beams away from the passengers, but its air-sucking location also provides not as much refreshing feeling for the front passengers' head than the more-rearward-located vent does.
So a tilt-able steel roof is still the ideal for vacuuming hot air out comfortably for the front passengers.
My made-in-West-Germany '84 Jetta(I) coupe's manual steel sliding roof is not leaking even today.
Interestingly, my made-in-Japan '93 Camry SE sedan's pwr sliding & tilt glass roof is leaking air. Any one knows the cure?
True.
The TSX with the 4-cylinder and 200HP and 166lbs/ft of torque engine, with the Navigation system and 5-speed Auto, is expected to sell for $29,000.
Probably close. It could be $26K and $28K (w/NAV) though. We should know in a few days.
The Honda costs less money and we are not comparing the TSX with the 4-cylinder Honda Accord (which would have taken another $2500 off the price mentioned above). If the TSX sells for MSRP (as I expect it would), there is a big spread right there. Is that clear enough ?
Oh yes. Now, since we made a big deal about comparing the two cars based on engine output, let us throw in the other things into the mix. Let us start with Accord EX which has an MSRP of about $24K.
Add Xenon Headlamps
Add Side Curtain Airbag
Add Vehicle Stability System
Upgraded Seats
Upgrade Audio System (TSX has a 360 Watt audio output w/8-speakers)
Sport Package (Chassis tweaks including revised suspension)
P215/50/R17 wheels (Accord EX has P205/60/R16)
Auto-dimming Rear View Mirrors (optional in Accord)
Home Link Transmitter
Two Power Outlets (I believe Accord has one)
Electric Trunk Open/Close Switch (Accord has mechanical system to open only)
Illuminated buttons on doors
And while we can ignore some other fancy stuff like stainless steel door sill plates and speed sensing wiper etc. to be found in TSX compared to the Accord, how much do you think the above features will add to the cost of any car as an upgrade? And then we can talk about cost of adding 4-way passenger side power seat. Accord EX doesn't offer it either. BTW, I have ignored the drivetrain comparison of Accord's version of K24A to that of TSX version of K24A.
Also another one of those gems about the 184hp in the 325 not being able to be upgraded, I laughed out aloud.
And you still didn't get it. It was on you, BTW. I had my fill this afternoon reading your post about buyers not having the option to pay more for something.
Well, if I were paying near luxury price for BMW 325, I would expect those so called basic items included. May be, there are buyers who don't expect much from their $28K, I'm not one of them.
Have you heard of other engines like the 3.0L I-6 (330) and the 3.2L I-6 (M3) from BMW ? LOL.
And have you heard of "TL"? Adding cost to TSX does not make sense, as TL will be the step up from TSX, including all the tidbits that you’re willing to pay for. It may be a larger car, but that is also a plus for many, besides getting a powerful V6 option. Technically, they are still cousins, TSX being more like 2.5TL replacement.
A clarification on the space in the Civics....All Civic sedans (including DX, LX, Hybrid etc - in fact most of the Civics sold) excluding the EX, have more interior room than the TSX, after factoring in the headroom, shoulder room, legroom and every other parameter we can think of.
I asked you to back up the claim. Post facts. And then, I expect TSX to be as compact as it is, given the chassis setup. The point of TSX is not to deliver another family sedan, Accord at the lower end, and TL at the upper end are going to take care of those needs.
That said, car's size has no proportionality attached to its price tag, or does it? You seem to be fascinated by the size comparisons of Civic and TSX (and forget that BMW 3-series, Audi A4 are actually still smaller). If you have complaints about TSX's dimensions, you must be looking at, at least, BMW 5-series then.
Basically, most people are interested in a TSX, since they assume that it is slightly smaller and sportier than the US-spec Accord. But they would rethink a bit if they knew that they were getting a vehicle whose interior size is smaller than a Honda Civic for more money than the top of the line Accord EX V6. JMHO.
Believe me, TSX will be grabbed by a lot of smart buyers who would know what they want, and need. For them, size compared to Civic wouldn't be a distraction, as I doubt it is, with BMW 3-series and Audi A4 buyers (both cars smaller than Civic) and VW Passat (a car nearly identical in interior dimensions to the TSX).
If you find this discussion interesting, no point in quitting. Response awaited.
M
I pointed out somewhere earlier that an old tiny winnie little '82 Accord sedan was quieter than my brand-new roomier '90 Protege. I envy small quiet cars.
Ford of Europe pointed out that there's not much future for the Mondeo-sized car on this crowded earth. So I don't see much future for the Mazda6/TSX(or anything bigger) either, especially w/ the SUV-size turning circle to make buyers feel like they're driving a big (& therefore safe) car. Volvo is not insecure enough to use this to prove it's toughness. Rwd Volvos only need 32.2ft curb to curb. TSX's 40ft...
Again, tall short roomy cars like the Mazda3, w/ structure by Volvo, is the way to go. I'm just assuming that it must have a relatively small turning circle as this earth only allows that, 'cause Mazda's other roomy sedan, the 6, doesn't got one.
I was making a comparison between the relative EFFECTIVENESS of struts vs. wishbones, not a comparison of COST.
Struts work better in BMWs and Porsches (as opposed to FWD cars) because A) they are RWD or AWD cars, and
Unless you were napping, I've already made the point about how the use of strut in BMWs and Porsches allows the passenger space to be maximized while maintaining a smaller footprint in the road (which is good for making a car more nimble).
Given the comparable interior dimensions of the Civic and TSX, your reasoning indicates that perhaps Acura should've gone ahead and used struts, too. The reduced cost and increase in interior room would've effectively dispelled the Accord/TSX contention, as well.
You seem to be continually confused about the fact that the TSX is a FWD vehicle and the 3-series is RWD. Given your obvious knowledge, you must surely realize that a car's handling is greatly impacted by the configuration of its drivetrain.
If you're intent upon making item-by-item feature comparisons between cars ("My dad can beat up your dad!"), you wouldn't be doing your own credibilty and perceived objectivity any harm by comparing "apples to apples."
Well said. Post of the day. LOL!
It may be true that there will be no difference in price between the auto and manual tranny. In most econo-cars, the stick is the cheaper transmission. But, with many of the sporting 6 speeds, those manuals gears are considered a performance upgrade and cost a bit more than the automatic version. I think Nissan is one of the companies to do this. I can see things getting expensive with the alloy tranny housing they used for the TSX. If the 6 speed is cheaper, I wouldn't expect it to be a significant difference.
http://www.clubtsx.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=ec9b977ba0341de93818e- b2a7ec7af43&threadid=1147
Talk about sticker shock.
http://www.clubtsx.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1147&am- p;pagenumber=1