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
Can anyone guess what car i am talking about?? It was a major disaster for the manufacturer! It handled well, but no one could get over the fact that it was ONLY a 4-cylinder and slow. And remember, this was at a time BEFORE the current HP wars ("let's see who can get as close to 6.0 seconds from 0-60 mph").
Still don't know?? Hint: Infiniti made it. Yup, the Infiniti G20. If you don't remember it, then it's a good thing for Infiniti. Infiniti since that time has learned REAL fast that a true sports sedan needs to have plenty of power...and RWD...to be even considered in the same class as BMW. Lexus felt the same way.
Would be TSX mini Accord with modified 4 cy engine and much higher price ?
I think the TSX compares quite well in this group.
Acura is all about having something over it's competitors (usually a bigger or better engine--Honda's forte). The TSX does not have anything significantly better than it's competitors. The Accord's V6 would have been the key to TSX's success! I am sure the interior is nice and well-made...i am sure it's engine is nice too...but, isn't its true purpose a "sports sedan"??
Acura brandname is nowhere near Mercedes or BMW in prestige...and is behind Lexus. It is probably better than Volvo...Audi and Acura are about the same in my opinion.
So, Acura must have a distinct advantage to get sales...so far, i don't see any in the TSX.
Since this happened, maybe the new 2004 TL will have fake wood again also.
I will no longer bother to consider the TSX since it is simulated wood and apparently not realistic enough to fool anyone.
If a VW Jetta GLX can have real wood, an Acura TSX should also.
The Jetta GLX is another competitor to the TSX and is rarely mentioned.
Real wood trim was one of the things that was going to justify some of the cost over a Honda Accord and make it feel more like a real near-luxury car. Now it doesn't even have that feature.
The G20 had a very strong 2.0L 4-cylinder when it came out! It made around 145 HP with 133 torque (i think). Those are very good numbers back then. Only very FEW 4-cylinders at that time can match it (and ALL of these few examples had bigger engines).
Generic?? Well, it's the same basic engine in the CRV/Element and Accord (4-cyl). Honda/Acura just tuned it differently for higher RPM power (increase compression ratios, etc.). It's a great 4-cylinder engine, don't get me wrong. However, does it belong in a LUXURY SPORTS SEDAN costing $28K???? Where is Acura's advantage in this sedan over it's competitors????? And Acura NEEDS an advantage to sell it's vehicles...certainly, brandname alone is not gonna work.
BTW, i am NOT a BMW nor Mercedes fan. I have a Toyota. This is not meant to insult TSX owners. However, i am confused about Acura's intentions with the TSX.
Most of the comments here have not been overly positive, and none of them have been exciting. While this engine felt spunky in a larger Accord, it feels sluggish in the smaller TSX.
The car has a few substantial upgrades over the Accord, and surely handles better, but firmer springs and different bushings should not contribute to the cost of the vehicle. Different does not equal more expensive, and it's silly to pay thousands for a spring the costs no more to manufacture. It seems as if the car is too quiet to feel sporty anyway.
Besides, Europe gets that ride quality for free. The US got slightly different bushings to compensate for our bumpy roads, and 3% firmer springs to compensate for the softer bushings.
None of the comments here have done anything to demonstrate to me that this is more than a $20,000 car with 200lbs worth of extras tacked on. That would seem to make the car luxurious with all the premium electronics, except that darn 4cyl is still in there.
Unfortunately, I didn't get to test-drive the car this weekend as I had hoped, but all the comments here are confirming the suspicions I've had all along.
BTW... nobody has, in person, identified the wood as being fake. If you can't tell in person, what difference does it make? Likewise, if Honda had made a 6cyl with the same amount of power, torque, and displacement, what difference would it make? It's already smooth.
From what I'm reading, I'd venture a guess that this car would be STELLAR minus about 250lbs or so.
Also, as far as magazine test numbers go, I am sure that by dumping the clutch at very high rpms (in the 6-speed version), they probably may be able to generate some impressive sounding numbers, which the common joe on the street will be foxed to find that he simply cannot duplicate (especially if he loves his car at all).
Later...AH
Yes, I am sure a lot of people (who would otherwise not even look at it) would buy the Grand Prix, if Honda was the one who manufactured it. JMHO.
Later...AH
Is the TSX significantly heavier than the 325, A4, etc? What would be a significant amount?
The TSX has more horsepower (but less torque) than most of the "entry sport-luxury" offerings. I would say that the BMW 325 feels quicker, but on paper the manual version does 0-60 in about 7.0 seconds. The Audi 1.8 in around 8 seconds (heck, the A4 with the 3.0 V6 takes 7 sec). The C-class 230 (which I was sure was a V6, though someone else mentioned it was a 4--anyone know for sure?) is as slow as the Audi 1.8. Most companies that offer two engines in their sport-sedan line offer at least one with less hp than the TSX (Volvo, Saab, Jaguar--Infiniti would be the big exception). I'd bet that the TSX manual could beat most of them 0-60 and be competitive with the Bimmer.
I'll admit the BMW is a better feeling car than the TSX (feels quicker, handles better, brakes better, etc), but, similarly equipped it would cost $8k more. Is the driving experience THAT much better? None of the cars I mentioned cost less than $30,000 when similarly equipped to the TSX. Most of their BASE prices are more than the TSX. To be honest, if I had $35-40k to spend, I would probably get a BMW. However, for the person shopping for a small sport sedan on a budget, I think the TSX would be hard to beat.
I posted a summary of a direct comparo of the TSX and Mazda 6s on the TSX vs 6 board (drove them both back to back), and I too found the TSX to be downright slow with the automatic, the way most people will be buying one. Not that I want a Mazda 6 though.
M
Honda isn't going to do a turbocharged engine, so a small and lightweight V6 (2.8L-3.0L) with more power is in order for the TSX. Since the the TL is likely to move upmarket next year, probably around 35K loaded w/nav and around at least the same base hp (225) there would be nothing wrong with a V6 TSX with 210hp and more torque, at least 190lb-ft, the current 166lb-ft simply doesn't cut it.
Upon driving the TSX I found all the other things are in place, steering, handling, build quality, lots of standard features for small car entry-level car, and a Nav system (and I don't see the point of them) better than most if not all German cars and most other higher priced Japanese luxury cars. The car is complete in just about every other way than under the hood.
Now I'm waiting to see a comparo: C230, 325i, A4 1.8t, 9/3 Linear, and others.
M
Thinking back to my Accord V6/TSX comparison test drives, the Accord seems like the best example of what it could be, while the TSX seems like a pale imitation of something it wants to be. I'd rather have a car that does its own thing really well, than a car that kind of does what another car already does well.
P.S. -- The fake wood on the Accord is really awful, too. What's up with the crazy birdseye patterns? Thank god for the metal-look trim. It fakes it much better.
It is not "about the same price" if you add comparable options, but you do get a lot more power for a lot more money or in exchange for not having the expected options.
The A4 has a Turbo but it only makes 170 hp out of it's 1.8L engine. Doesn't count. The Bimmer 325 makes more torque but less hp. The Benz C-class is the same. The TSX can't be touched in a value argument against those cars. It may not be RWD or AWD but it's just as fast and has more features.
Essentially, if a new player has to make a statement in the entry luxury marketplace, it has to leapfrog what the competition offers....not just meet them in the performance of their base models.
Later...AH
When driving the Accord V6, you can definitely feel the thrust, deceptive or not. With the TSX, you can definitely feel the lack of any thrust.
Maybe because I had lesser expectations from the Honda 4-cylinder (cousin of the TSX engine), I definitely felt it to be pretty peppy when I drove it. Maybe because both engines have pretty much the same amount of torque (161 @4500rpm vs 166 @4500rpm) and the Accord is 170lbs lighter ??
Later...AH
As far as Intrigues go, as I recall Car and Driver magazine (from circa 1999) indicated they preferred the steering and handling of the 3800 Intrigue, like mine, as opposed to the Shortstar 3.5 litre version. I think there were some changes to the steering system when the new engine was released, which makes sense. The marriage between engine and transmission was also rated better with the 3800 in terms of responsiveness and smoother shifts. The 3800 offered more off the line grunt, but lost its breath at higher speeds. In short, they actually indicated a preference for the 3800 despite it’s low-tech origins. To call the Intrigue “sloppy” is inaccurate. As I indicated, it is no sport sedan. At best, it is a sporty family sedan. But it certainly is no Buick as far as ride and handling characteristics are concerned. I intentionally got the 3800 version because I knew it was proven, reliable power train. Everything I have heard about the 3.5 indicates it is less than as reliable. I wish all of you Intrigue 3.5'ers well, as I know parts for that engine are much pricier than the venerable 3800. I just passed 105K miles today... groan.... Considering the synergy of GM rebates and financing incentives and resulting glut of used cars, my car's high mileage, and the demise of Olds into an orphan division, I know I may as well keep the car instead of trading it in, as I will not get diddly squat for it. By the time I hit 60 years of age in about 25 years, it may be a collector's item... a guy can hope, right ?
In reference to the TSX navigation system and these systems in general, if you need to read a manual to decifer them, then that proves their limitations. Proper ergonomic design dictates that controls be intuitive to operate, regardless of what you are driving—even if it is a much lambasted mid-80’s Buick Riviera with a primitive touch screen (by today’s standards), a TSX, or a new BMW like the much criticized I-drive on the 7 series. Also, just imagine trying to repair such systems when they malfunction. Talk about trying to exorcise a ghost from the machine! If you like the gee-whiz factor of a navigation system, and have the need to feel special because of it, then by all means go for it. As far as I am concerned, that is all they are worth. Since I have no need for the gee-whiz factor, I’d rather take that $2,000 and stick it in a Roth IRA. If I were to buy an Accord V6 EX instead, I could do the same for two years (if I haggle intelligently) and still have all the bells and whistles I need + more room + 40 more horsepower + loads more torque + 87 octane fuel requirements. Yes, the TSX may handle a smidgen better than an Accord EX-V6, but not $3-4 grand better . Since my Intrigue is paid for, well—I think it handles just fine- -thankyouverymuch! Just my 2 cents. Hope everyone has a great week ahead
I hope you would be consistent in bringing out accurate MSRP and ensuring the inclusion of 'the non-negotiable' destination charge when it comes to making comparisons. It shouldn't work for one car and not for others.
Also, as far as magazine test numbers go, I am sure that by dumping the clutch at very high rpms (in the 6-speed version), they probably may be able to generate some impressive sounding numbers
Just curious. Why would that be required?
As I said earlier, Honda/Acura has definitely met their HP numbers to make the output from the TSX sound impressive. It is just that the reality on the ground is different from what those numbers suggest.
Wait a minute. Somebody pointed out that A4 has 170 HP, 325 has 184 HP, and TSX has 200 HP. What 'reality' are you talking about?
TSX is lighter than 'base' A4 (3252 lb./5-manual) and 'base' 325 (3259 lb./manual). I emphasized on 'base' because with additional features, weight will only go up.
With sport package (G20t), it was a good handler, but not really a refined offering, and lacked accelerative performance.
The back seat seemed ok, even with the front seat pushed back fairly far. I'm fairly tall and my husband is 6'1" and we were OK. I don't think it would be comfortable for long distances, though. It's a tad better than the backseat of a 3-series, though. At least there's somewhere to put your toes.
This would probably be a fun city car, if you want something spunky but small. And if you don't mind a permanent bruise on your arm from squeezing it down between the seat and the door.
Are you suggesting that Sport Package should be a no-cost option on any car? Let us take an example.
Audi A4/1.8T:
Base Price (5-speed manual) $25,760.
Sport Package (Stiffer Springs, 17" rims) $1000
Total Base + Sport Package = $26,760
Apparently, Audi does charge for the 'upgrade'. BMW does, too.
That said, while we whine about pricing of TSX, we have not added leather, moon roof, cold weather package, xenons, to the pricing of A4 yet. Could this be the reason that a typical A4/1.8T is paying $29K, based on TMV?
BTW, TMV is $30-32K for Saab 9-3 (depending on trim), $32K for Infiniti G35.
Curiously, Edmunds' TMV for the Saab 9-3 Linear has been way out of whack for quite some time. Depending on trim level and purchasing region, one can purchase a Linear for above $26k to under $29k. Folks who qualify for GM supplier discounts get further discounts.
And TSX doesn't? It has different wheels, tires, seats and steering wheels compared to Accord.
I believe the point was, just changing from one bushing to another should not change the price (or very minimally). Shocks can be a bigger difference though.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
But I'm afraid that, for whatever reasons, Edmunds' TMV on the 9-3 has been inaccurate for at least a few months now. Folks in the 9-3 forum here have been consistently posting deals that include incentives that Edmunds did not list. I don't have an explanation and the discrepancies have been pointed out for a few months now.
E.g. there were two nationwide incentives that could be packaged together for purchases for a few months, totaling $2,500. Yet Edmunds TMV shows a loaded 9-3 Linear with a stick (moonroof, bi-xenons, sport package, auto climate, heated seats, etc.) at just $1,665 below MSRP. (Automatic adds more to the price, unlike the TSX). Believe me, Saab dealers are fortunate to get $250-$500 above the holdback. Since invoice for the above is $29,750-$30,163 (depending on color) before any regional fees, you can see how folks were using the $2,500 to get a loaded (not stripped) Linear $27k-$28k.
The current purchase incentive (which can't be combined with Saab financing) is now $3,000. Edmunds is now listing the incentive but TMV is still strangely high (it should at least reflect the $2,500 incentive). With the $3k incentive, the 9-3's price comes quite close to the TSX's.
Obviously both vehicles have their pros and cons relative to each other. But the real-world price of a 9-3 Linear is certainly within a thousand or two of the TSX (assuming the latter sells at MSRP).
This is an interesting question. CR pointed out that the early '80's VW Quantum sedan's center-section is bulged & pushing the 5th passenger above & forward from the neighbors so they are not squeezing directly side by side.
TSX got this design, too, as the 2 side-passengers can't sit very near the doors w/o having one side of the buttock landing on an elevated portion & the whole torso facing diagonally away from the doors.
The rear seat's thigh lengths are also more extended for the outer 2 passengers. But sadly, the cushion height isn't high & isn't angled upward to support long-leggers' thigh like how it seems in the brochure! Resting elbows on the door arm rests is awkward, since the wheel-well bulge forces the elbows to move more forward.
I test drove an auto TSX(along w/ 5 Mazdas!) today. & I was dead right, too - "The only thing really wrong is the steering feedback." Not just insufficient, there simply isn't any feel, period. I suspect that the softened bushings to make the car "Acura plush" as the main culprit, as the smaller sway bars already compensated for the 5%-firmer springs/shocks. It doesn't matter how composed & competent this high-capacity suspension performs, when the steering doesn't talk back to you, it's never fun, eventhough it's still precise & quick! Only monkey test drivers would compliment about the steering being nicely firm & tight. ALL THERE IS IS THE STRONG SELF CENTERING, as mentioned by Automobile. Don't get me wrong, most pwr steerings suck, too.
I may not have any impression from the steering of the Mazda6(i & s), but at least it wasn't "conspicuously numb". The 6's steering might be a little better calibrated than the Millenia's, which was rated 2nd place behind the 325i during the mid '90's in the C&D group comparison.
But being a driver of the '90 Protege LX, which is the sport model w/ a different steering rack, I simply don't find the 6's steering feedback sufficient, at least at relatively low speed. Only the Miata or, barely, the Protege(both the 5 & turbo Mazdaspeed) can tickle me. Gosh, C&D was dead right. When the new Protege was introduced in '99, C&D complained about it's lack of liveliness off the center. It's always a good thing to do some "homework" from C&D beforehand. My only hope left is the "Focus steering-rack" Mazda3, especially when the 6s's heavy nose doesn't like to change its direction as much. The 3 may be behind TSX in refinement, but so is the 6.
Acura realized the need to rev often, so the car revved pretty quietly & smoothly plus good noise isolation. But the auto tranny sometimes refused to use the upper rev band, so I had to manually shift. & if not done carefully, can bump above the 7100rpm red line! 'cause the built-up is relatively fast up there AND so short lasting, too, as the special 6000-7000rpm "magic" kicks in!
A CVT is needed, but I remember the weak-low-end Mini Cooper CVT is still quite sluggish as if the lowest gear isn't low enough.
I cannot comment on those Mazdas' pwr, as all of them were done in the "MazdaRevItUp" slow-speed-closed-course event.
TSX - At this price, this steering feedback(or the lack of it), & short-lived excitement in the rev band, plus the lack of memory seating(& no charcoal air filtration like the 325i?), I wonder what this "$30K out-the-door" spending is all about.
Whats sad is that Infiniti is passing them too in the name game, if not sales. Infiniti for the first time, has a more desirable lineup than Acura.
I do believe that the next RL will be an interesting car though, a hybrid of some sort is the industry gossip.
I've got my fingers crossed for the next TL too. I just want a return of a true "Legend".
M