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
You just described the 2000 Accord EX V-6 you're currently driving...
Honda has already said they have no intention to fit a V6. This is a car that appears to be optimized for the four. That's why it works so well with the four. I'm sure Honda could fit a V6 but it would be heavier, cost more, and not handle as well. I'm sure Honda feels like they've already got that type of car fairly well covered with the Accord.
- Mark
I think this is the biggest pile of BS I have heard in a while. Accord built like a Chevy ?? Where in the heavens did you come up with this kind of illogical assumptions ?
Park a TSX beside a 4-cylinder US-spec Accord Sedan (both of which are built side-by-side in the same plant in Japan - Sayama, Saitama) and talk about the Accord being built like a Chevy....people might think you have gone bonkers. JMHO.
Later...AH
If you can live without VSA and side curtain airbags, I would suggest that you stick with the 4-cylinder Accord. I think VSA would be a must in a RWD vehicle (specifically in inclement weather) but in a FWD vehicle, I think you can definitely get by with Traction Control, which the Accord anyway has, along with 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS. If you need more turbine-smooth power, you could step up to the V6 Accord EX, which in-spite of being cheaper than the TSX, also has some features not available in the TSX, like power passenger seats.
After the TSX drive, I went to a nearby Infiniti dealership and drove the RWD G35 with VSA and All-speed traction control standard. WOW ! Talk of power all over the powerband. Even the TL-s would not hold a candle to that engine/drivetrain combination. Zero lift aerodynamics, with a cd of 0.26.
Later...AH
M
Also, few of the german cars with four bangers or base i6 engines mated to automatics are considered speed burners. This is also true of the Mazda 6i. They may handle well, but are not considered hot rods. The german near luxery cars with automatics and base engines tend to give refined luxery (especially interiors)with pokey to decent performance. Japanese near lux cars give less lux (except for lexus)and better bang for the buck performance. With the german cars you pay more for the auto and often a lot more for a more powerful engine to overcome the drag of the auto. Dealers also have a nasty habit of loading up the auto versions with other costly options. The tsx is a bargain when compared to comparably equiped rivals. Neither the g35, nor the maxima with automatics will often be in the price range of the tsx. They outpower the tsx, but offer less refinement at higher prices.
Cheaper cars with better acceleration than the tsx tend to be cars like the altima and honda. These are not near luxery cars. You get the acceleration, but not the handling or the refinement and level of luxery.
I drove a TSX 6-spd. on Saturday. I'll post details when I get a bit more time.
"You just described the 2000 Accord EX V-6 you're currently driving..."
fedlawman, that describes my current Accord except for the part about being modern. My Accord has no traction control, no heated seats, no dual-zone climate control, no curtain airbags, and compared to the 2003 Accord, the interior feels very cheap. On paper, the new Accord has everything I want. The only thing stopping me from getting one is the way it looks. And after seeing the new TL and the TSX, I feel even worse about how the Accord looks.
As for the lack of a V6 in the TSX, I don't buy any of the excuses Acura is giving us. I'm sure they could stick in a smaller V6 in the TSX, but they're probably worried it'll affect sales of the new TL, which is basically a bigger, more powerful, and nicer version of the TSX. A lot of TL buyers are single males who don't need a big car. The smaller TSX is fine for them. They want the TL mainly for the power. So what do you think would happen if the TSX had a V6 with over 200 hp? Those single males wouldn't want to pay the extra 5K for a TL. They'd just get a TSX instead. It reminds me of the problem BMW has with their 528. Why get a 6 cylinder 5-series when you could get a slightly smaller version, the 328, for a lot less money? No doubt BMW realized this, which is why they also offer the 540. But since Acura is opposed to 8 cylinders, their only other option is to somehow make the TSX less powerful than the TL. I really think the TSX is meant to be the new Integra but the pricing makes people think it's more than an Integra and it's precisely because of the price that people expect more power. Ultimately the problem here is Acura's refusal to use V8 engines. Offer the TL with a V8, stick a V6 in the TSX, and both cars would sell well.
Now, I admit the 4 cyl acceleration is different from the two above, simply because it is a 4 vs. 6. It takes a bit of getting used to. But my point was really it is quite fast enough to get up and go when you need it. And yes, the 4 does require higher revs to get there. And it's certainly not as fast, by maybe a second or so, than a G35, and plenty of others out there. But in reality, the TSX has more than adequate power for what 98% of us will ever need or use.
And I have the 5AT, not the 6 speed. I think really I must agree that it is subjective. Some want head jerking power, and others my be satisfied with less, as long as it gets you out of the way of the semi behind you.
I just wanted to remind you that you were going to check the RPM at exactly 70 mph for me when you get the chance. Thanks
One of the issues many raise about Acura RL's engine is that it doesn't have enough power. Well, if you look at the specs the engine makes,
225 HP @ 5200 rpm, 231-lb.-ft @ 2800 rpm, redline: 5600 rpm.
That is a very un-Honda like redline, isn't it? The engine is VTEC-less and although it continues to make 98% of the peak torque at peak power, it is tuned for low to mid range power, only. I would prefer Acura MDX like output instead, 260 HP @ 5750 rpm, 250 lb.-ft @ 3500 rpm to 5000 rpm.
If you enjoy cars with 5000 rpm redline, I hope you realize the penalty of low redline when it comes to gearing. Let us assume a few things (yes, I do enjoy stating the obvious to you since it makes for a good conversation).
Engine A
Power: 135 HP @ 4500 rpm
Torque: 165 lb.-ft @ 2000 rpm
Red line: 5000 rpm.
Engine B
Torque: 150 lb.-ft @ 2000 rpm (assuming 90% of peak torque)
Red line: 7000 rpm
If you want to match wheel speed at redline, engine B could be geared 1.42 times shorter. What does that mean? At 2000 rpm, if gearing multiplies 165 lb.-ft by 1 for engine A, the gearing will multiply 150 lb.-ft by 1.4 (or an equivalent of 210 lb.-ft compared to the first case). Do you see part of the light?
Now, wheel speed will not match at 2000 rpm for the two setups. The wheel speed of A at 2000 rpm will be same for B at 2800 rpm, and that would be the only difference. Now, if B is making better than 150 lb.-ft at 2800 rpm, and A is still making 165 lb.-ft, the difference in thrust will be wider (more horsepower).
That would be when you keep the turbo spooled, I would think. Not to dismiss a good drive train, but it would be nice if you posted a dyno of the engine (or similar engine) to see how the engine behaves.
The Turbo-charging changes the scenario altogether. It should no more be considered as a mere 4-cylinder anymore. It behaves like a powerful V8 engine, changing the dynamics completely.
I see the point, but would you be happier if Acura used six or eight cylinder engine displacing only 2354 cc that the K24A does? Or is it the output that bothers you?
Seeing that automakers like Honda, BMW and Ferrari don't rely on turbo charging, I would assume that they have some reasons. It is not that Honda does not make turbo charged engines, in fact, it sells one here in the USA. It has a 1.2-liter I-4 turbocharged DOHC pumping 165 HP.
They should have done a before and after test to get to the real numbers. u can't simply go by the mfg numbers in such tests
the automatic I drove was slow if you didn't really step on it.
Did you drive around at 30-35 mph? Or did you take it on a freeway? Based on all that I have read so far, the DBW system is tuned to not be aggressive for around town driving (to prevent wheel spin). So, it may not be a car with tip-in jump off the line and will disappoint some who expected that.
hunter001
I really don't think the TSX can manage a 7.0sec 0-60. Maybe with a high rpm clutch-dump, you may be able to manage something close.
You didn't respond to my earlier post on the same. Why do you think a high rpm clutch dump would be required?
The current 4-cylinder Accord feels more peppy than the TSX at lower city speeds, since the torque output from both engines are similar (161 lbs/ft for the Accord with regular fuel vs 166 lbs/ft for the TSX with premium fuel) with the Accord carting along almost 200 less pounds.
Actually, low-end torque is quite different between the two variations of the engine. And unless you compare Accord DX to TSX, there isn't a 200 lb. difference either. C&D road test from about a month (or two) ago involved Accord EX w/5-speed. At 3186 lb., less torque (considerably less at lower rpm) taller gearing, it managed to pull 7.5s. TSX should be able to do it in 7.0s fairly easily.
Moving from a reasonably high-powered vehicle like the TL-s or even the TL, the TSX would appear positively anaemic.
TL-S and TL will be there for those who want more power (and heavier cars).
This 4-cylinder engine with 200hp and 166lbs/ft of Torque, is lugging along the same weight as the Honda Accord V6 which has 240HP and 212lbs/ft of Torque.
Again, no more weight than 184 HP/175 lb.-ft BMW 325, or 170 HP/166 lb.-ft Audi A4/1.8T. That said, I wonder how the drivers of BMW 325xi (3450 lb.), BMW 525i (3450 lb.) or Audi A4/1.8TQ (3450 lb.) manage to drive their cars around. Those must be some real slugs.
Going by the way they talk, I am pretty sure that good deals (well below MSRP) are right around the corner, for the TSX. For comparison, cars like the Acura MDX, Honda Odyssey, Honda Pilot, S2000 etc., are selling at or near MSRP, even several years after their introduction, which does not bode well for the TSX.
Would be a fantastic thing for me, and many others.
I have not seen published numbers but my rough estimate works pretty well... 90% of MSRP. That means, invoice on TSX should be about $23,800. Something I hope to target when it is time!
Much of your theory ignores a variety of factors that must be accounted for. And even if we choose to focus simply on peak torque (4500 rpm) for both engines, do you think the effective gearing at the wheels is identical for Accord and TSX? If you do, your theory is incomplete, especially with manual transmission.
TSX is geared 9% shorter in first gear. That means, if Accord is delivering 161 lb.-ft, the effective torque at the wheels for TSX would be 181 lb.-ft.
TSX is geared 16% shorter in the second gear. That means, if Accord is delivering 161 lb.-ft, the effective torque for TSX would be 187 lb.-ft.
And so on. It makes more sense to complete a theory with the important aspects factored in. However, with auto transmission the gearing is identical in the first, second and fifth gear (so, highway cruising speeds will be nearly identical for Accord and TSX. At 60 mph, Accord and TSX should turn just under 2000 rpm. At 70 mph, TSX will turn just over 2300 rpm.
The third and fourth gears are 5% tighter in TSX (useful gears for acceleration at highway speeds). While 5% might not sound much, it would be equivalent of comparing 161 lb.-ft to 175-lb.-ft.
Also a cheaper way -although less HP gained but way cheaper than a V6 - would be to bore out the existing engine (from 87mm to 89 mm) while keeping everything else the same
The cheapest way for Honda to have delivered the TSX would have been using J25A from their bin. That is the 2.5-liter version of the V6 family, and delivers 200 HP (at 6200 rpm) /178 lb.-ft (at 4600 rpm) in the Japanese equivalent of what would had been 2.5TL. While I can't speak for size of the engine, I doubt they could have managed to keep the curb weight down enough to justify use of V6.
K24A may have a better future than the J25A since Honda is moving towards I-VTEC, and that K24A may have been designed to use electric power assist to begin with.
More fun with numbers... by stretchsje
Just as a comparison:
The 325i may make 169hp at 5500rpm (just a guess), whereas the TSX may make 162hp at 5500rpm.
To make 162 HP (apparently, you wanted to make sure that TSX isn't quoted with a higher number), the K24A will have to make only 154 lb.-ft. Now, here is the kicker (and you should realize that), K24A makes 166 lb.-ft at 4500 rpm and makes 154 lb.-ft at 6800 rpm. What makes you think that the K24A makes 154 lb.-ft at 5500 rpm? Would you bet against me that TSX isn't making 170 HP at 5500 rpm? ;-)
hunter001
I think a couple of years back, a magazine had done a test of drivetrain losses and were amazed at the very tiny losses from the BMW engine, when compared to the losses from the engines of the other manufacturers. I believe they commented then, that either BMW was underrating their engine output or the drivetrain was so efficient that it was almost unreal.
Have you heard of K24A in Accord dynoed at 146 HP / 150 lb.-ft? Remember, this engine is rated at 160 HP (only 9% loss?), and 161 lb.-ft (only 7% loss)? Or is it that Honda is also under-rating its engines? Remember, the version of K24A Honda is using in Japan (equivalent of that used in TSX) is rated at 200 HP/ 171 lb.-ft (at same engine speeds).
If you can live without VSA and side curtain airbags, I would suggest that you stick with the 4-cylinder Accord. I think VSA would be a must in a RWD vehicle (specifically in inclement weather) but in a FWD vehicle, I think you can definitely get by with Traction Control, which the Accord anyway has, along with 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS.
If people can just live by certain things, there would be no need to buy anything that is priced more than $25K. That said, not too long ago, Acura MDX was trashed for not having stability control. Acura added it with 2003 release. People have complained about VSA and xenons not being an option on Accord (yes, I have read that too, right here at Edmunds), so how do you think about addressing those issues?
Zero lift aerodynamics, with a cd of 0.26.
TSX has that cd as well (without any additional aerodynamic package). How much did the G35 cost with all those bells and whistles?
bodble2
Well, actually the TSX is very similar in exterior dimensions to the '94 - '97 Accord. And they managed to put a V6 in that, although I think they stretched the nose a tad to accommodate that. That can be easily done with the TSX though.
Stretching the car added to the cost as well. Didn't Honda manage to trim $1500 off the cost of Accord V6 with the MY98 redesign?
Anybody looking for TSX with V6 should wait and pay for the powerful TL-S that should arrive a few months down the road.
However, that shorter gearing comes at a 5mpg penalty, despite premium gas. The Accord gets over 20% better city mileage (!)- the TSX gets worse mileage than even the monsterously powerful Accord V6 due to this gearing. Worth it?
Also, the gearing is not much more aggressive with the automatic transmission.
Again, I discussed this is the 2nd part of my post when comparing to the 325i's engine... and the numbers in that example were just a guess. Relative to one another, they're probably pretty accurate, even if you think they should be higher.
And so was my argument. At 4500 rpm, Accord has 161 lb.-ft and TSX gets 166 lb.-ft. But, TSX is geared 1.09 times shorter (in first) than Accord. If TSX had gearing from Accord, it would need 181 lb.-ft from the engine to have the same pull at 4500 rpm as it does with 166 lb.-ft with its shorter gearing.
However, that shorter gearing comes at a 5mpg penalty, despite premium gas.
If mileage is an issue, TSX with 6-speed manual will be a disappointment. 5-speed auto is, however, fairly good (23/32 mpg), an improvement from my Prelude, actually, and better than 1998-2002 Accord V6 (and many four bangers for that matter).
Also, the gearing is not much more aggressive with the automatic transmission.
I have covered that part, already. Only third and fourth gears are shorter (5%).
Again, I discussed this is the 2nd part of my post when comparing to the 325i's engine.
Throw in the weight and gearing of the 325 and we shall start the discussion.
Spending more on the G35 also gets you more interior space, an additional 60 hp, more torque, and RWD. This is not a comparison favorable to the TSX, even when price is a consideration.
That said, turbo with big engine is not really a bad idea since even when the turbo isn't spooled up, there is more than enough power on tap. With less displacement, that would not be the case.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081194
There're a couple of references to Acura towards the end.
If weight of the engine is the consideration, then I quoted earlier about Audi, where they replaced their current 2.7T V6 engine in the outgoing S4 with a 4.2L V8 in the new S4. The 4.2L V8 was re-engineered to be lighter than the outgoing 2.7T V6 engine. With enough engineering dollars spent, you can definitely come up with a more powerful/torquier V6 engine that is lighter than the current 4-cylinder. It might be just what this car needs, since this is a heavy-azz car, that definitely needs some help in the engine compartment. Or, this engine (which has fantastic output for its size) definitely needs a lighter car to lug along.
While I was at the local dealership yesterday, the salesperson also commented that they get a lot of people coming in to look at the TSX (after listening to all the news buildup before the launch) and then take the car out for a spin and come away impressed with the overall package but disappointed at the get-up-and-go. Most of them don't come back and rarely is someone impressed enough to sit down and talk turkey. Maybe those people testdriving are not revving this engine enough ?? But the bottomline is that high-revving a sporty family sedan to extract its power, gets tiring after a while. Especially if you have to do it all the time. A small V6 should cure all its problems. The V6 can be small enough (2.8L??) to not threaten the high-output screamers from the upcoming TL/TL-s. So that need not be a consideration for denying a V6 for this car.
Later...AH
Looks like they discovered something new.
But normal drivers aren't going to mash the brakes and go sliding through turns like a rally champion... Housewives heading to the Safeway aren't going to try it either.
Normal drivers (housewives included?) aren't (shouldn't) try to slide the rear out anyway.
why the Infiniti G-35 and Lexus IS-300 (both rear drive) are so popular, and why the RWD Cadillac CTS and Lincoln LS are so refreshing to drive.
FHI, Lexus ES300 is more popular than Lexus IS300.
Speaking of trouble, I don't see Audi, Acura or Volvo involved in one. Volvo actually dumped its RWD offering going from S90 to S80. Safety?
That has nothing to do with the innate capability of the RWD IS300 with the 3.0L inline-6 VVTL-i engine (NOT V6), which is a single-minded razor sharp handler with no pretense to anything other than that. Its gunfighter handling reflexes are superb to say the least.
The ES300, is a FWD Toyota Camry based softly sprung product, equipped with a V6 VVTL-i engine, and makes no pretense at any hint of sportiness, and whose purpose in life, is to provide a coddly soft ride. It excels in this department.
So comparing 2 such completely different products that address 2 completely different market segments and commenting on the "popularity" of one over the other is illogical. JMHO.
Later...AH
I so not like the silver interior trim. I prefer plood and the tan leather. I would like the blue/gray with the tan.
Dealer pitched that it is limited production, ie sticker only. I checked the inventory of dealers around and no one had more than 3. It will take a few months to see if it really takes off or not.
I thought I read somewhere that the Euro Accord has room for a V6.
"That has nothing to do with the innate capability of the RWD IS300 with the 3.0L inline-6 VVTL-i engine (NOT V6), which is a single-minded razor sharp handler with no pretense to anything other than that. Its gunfighter handling reflexes are superb to say the least.
The ES300, is a FWD Toyota Camry based softly sprung product..."
The article mentioned IS300 as a success because...? (help me out here). The bottom line is, ES300 is a greater success even though it is a front driver. It is not about your likes or dislikes of the comparison, it is about the point of bringing out "failure and success" in the article.
Not really. Trail-braking has been around for a long time. It's the most effective way of getting a FWD to rotate, when it works.
However, Grassroots didn't go on to say how much more rewarding the RSX was to trail-brake through turns, as opposed to using the throttle in the BMW. Care to guess why?
Because it's not.
I have trouble digesting articles that generalize a bit too much and draw conclusions as intended to start with. Here is an excerpt from road test of BMW 330Ci ClubSport from Evo (UK),
"The Clubsport's chassis modifications promise some additional edge, but attack a B-road with any conviction and you'll soon discover a frustrating lack of front-end bite. Second-gear corners and a 330 BMW usually means large amounts of fun, but in the Clubsport you're more likely to encounter understeer as the front is keen to push wide unless you really pitch it in. Even then the combination of those 18in rims and relative lack of power means M3-style powerslides are as likely as a Sven-Goran Eriksson smile."
FWD or RWD or AWD, in the end, if it works well enough, get what moves you.
ES300 is a greater success because it sells more ?? Or is it because the market segment that the ES300 addresses, is larger and hence can sell more cars ?
By the same logic, the Honda S2000 that has been selling at MSRP+ since the day it debuted, should be a total failure for Honda, when compared to the Honda Accord, because the Accord sells many more cars ? Also, by the same logic, Honda assumes the TSX would be a "failure", due to which they are bringing over only 15,000 of those while deciding to make 400,000+ Accords ? Makes no logical sense, does it ?
The IS300 is excellent at what it does. It is a small, extremely capable RWD sport sedan. No ifs or buts there. The market segment for small RWD sport sedans, is much smaller than that of a mid-size near-luxury car, which is borne out by the volumes sold by the IS300 and the ES300. No surprises there. If the IS300 had a more conventional interior and exterior, while retaining all its current handling excellence, it would be even more popular, within its market segment. An example of a very popular RWD sportsedan/family-car, is the current G35, which has been selling at or very near MSRP, since the day it debuted. In fact, one of the few successes from Infiniti in the recent past. If Honda builds a similar RWD sports-sedan, I personally would line up for one.
Later...AH
Don't forget, Cd is only half of the equation. Surface area is the other. A small car may have a higher Cd, but since they're smaller- they're still more slippery relative to a larger (even if somewhat aerodynamic) car.
I bet nowadays aerodynamics improvements come mostly from decreasing body gaps and covering the bottom of the car.
The TSX is very heavy for a compact 4 cylinder, FWD car.
No more heavier than sub-compact BMW 325 (although it has a six cylinder engine), or Audi A4/1.8T (four banger) or Saab 9-3 (four banger) though. ;-)
hunter001
Explain to me why the author of the article mentioned Acura as a failure, and IS300 a success. I didn't get the point, probably you did.
Don't all Swedes do that? W/o pavement...
My comment was in reference to sporty FWD cars such as the RSX-S, Integra, Prelude, Focus SVT, Mazdaspeed Protege, etc. The TSX weighs way more than these cars.
Granted the TSX is bigger, but remember the context: we were talking in reference to FWD versus RWD, and how the comparitively lightweight RSX-S was able to nudge past the 3-series on a track. The RSX's advantage came from the weight savings, not from FWD, as the comparison suggests. The RSX has a huge weight advantage, the TSX does not.
And, as you pointed out, neither does the FWD A4, Saab 9-3, etc, and that's why the 3-series continues to dominate it's direct competition in sporty charactoristics. Comparing a TSX to the 3-series would be like comparing the RSX to the BMW Z4, which uses the same chassis, but weighs less. Get a car of equal size/weight and mission, then compare FWD to RWD.
A sporty car cannot be FWD unless it has a weight advantage relative to its class. A sports car cannot be FWD. A RWD vehicle with a weight advantage in its class is the ultimate performance machine.
That's also why the IS300 is mentioned as a success and Acura is not. The IS300 (manual transmission) is truly sporty compared to all Acura vehicles nowadays, but unfortunately sporty cars don't sell well. Only the sporty image sells. The Camry SE is a good example of a car advertised to be sporty that is not, and it sure does sell well! The article measured success by performance, not sales figures, as would any self-respecting enthusiast.
Well, I might just need a fwd 1st car for a brainless push during any weather in California, but I might also want to invest a rwd Miata for low-speed power-slide fun.
I loved the Mazda6 because, when not throttling, the car drifts, and even sometimes oversteers. This is very, very uncharactoristic of a FWD car- sometimes throttle is required to keep the car from oversteering. No other FWD car I know does this, and even though it's still subject to the HUGE drawbacks of FWD, it's (in my eyes) about as fun as FWD gets. The Protege too- the drive similarly. Old Acura cars used to be pretty fun, and I keep hoping for something to restore my faith, but... not happening. I lurk here because Acura could have so much potential!
I still wish I had bought the MR2 instead, but it was just so dang impractical, I'd probably of regretted that decision too!
Maybe when I'm not 22y old anymore, I'll just by two cars.
I've often though about how much fun owning both a WRX wagon and a Miata could be.
Could it be 2 separate things, here ?
Acura is perceived as a "near-luxury" luxury nameplate. In other words, not quite achieving the stature of real luxury manufacturers like Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Jaguar et.al....thus being a failure at achieving the objective of being a "luxury" manufacturer ? Even though Acura arrived well before Lexus from Toyota, Lexus quickly overwhelmed Acura, and is considered as a true Luxury manufacturer, without any excuses. Is it the fact that Acura (Honda) prefers to adopt "safe" V6s (as opposed to having V8s) and FWD platforms (as opposed to more dynamic RWD offerings) that is holding them back from being perceived as truly luxury class ? Maybe. "Safe V6s" and "FWD" may be passe in the pedestrian division (Honda), but in the Luxury class, you need to bring much more to the table to be taken really seriously ? Infiniti tried to bring over true Luxury products but poor business direction and non-focussed approach, left them as second-graders. As it stands now, I would prefer if Acura were to wind itself down and retire all of its better offerings to the Honda end of the business, since it would do very well there.
The IS300 could be perceived as a success, since it was a truly legitimate RWD competitor (from the Japanese) of the BMW 3-series, and successfully challenged it on every aspect. Lexus probably messed up a bit by introducing boy-racer touches in the IS300, thus limiting its appeal to a narrower section of the populace. But this is one car that truly kept BMW on its toes. Every single IS300 sold, takes a BMW 3-series sale away. BMW would be dreading the introduction of the redesigned IS series that would be debuting soon, since expectedly, Lexus would have learned from the mistakes of the current IS300 and engineered out boy-racer touches from this 30K+ car, while retaining the quicksilver reflexes of the car.
Later...AH
How do you built a front-engine/rear-wheel-drive ind-suspension sedan w/o putting on the extra weight vs fwd sedans? Even the cramped IS300 isn't light for its size. Maybe the new super-narrow 1-series, which might not be available as a 4-door.
You're right- no heavier than the A4 or Saab 9-3, and that's the TSX's real competition. The BMW distributes its weight better and will do a much better of controlling its own heft and using it to put power to the pavement.
Bottomline: BMW 325i, Audi A4/1.8T, Saab 9-3 and TSX weigh the same. Weight distribution would the subject of discussing another point. Don't confuse it with curb weight since your point was about a compact sedan weighing as much as TSX does.
the TSX is no heavier than what I would call "mock" sport-luxury cars such as the FWD A4 and Saab 9-3. They are also very heavy for a FWD car to be considered sporty.
Mazda6s is heavier. Would you consider it sporty?
Granted the TSX is bigger, but remember the context: we were talking in reference to FWD versus RWD, and how the comparitively lightweight RSX-S was able to nudge past the 3-series on a track. The RSX's advantage came from the weight savings, not from FWD, as the comparison suggests. The RSX has a huge weight advantage, the TSX does not.
Did you actually read the article? Nowhere I saw a mention of TSX. They were comparing RSX to 3-series on a track. That said, it would not be a bad idea for someone to compare A4, TSX, 9-3, 325 etc. on a track.
Comparing a TSX to the 3-series would be like comparing the RSX to the BMW Z4, which uses the same chassis, but weighs less.
No. RSX is not a roadster, but I would compare RSX to 325Ci (or 316ti, 318ti, 320Ci etc. if they were available).
A sporty car cannot be FWD unless it has a weight advantage relative to its class.
And how exactly would you elaborate on this. Got examples?
That's also why the IS300 is mentioned as a success and Acura is not.
Expecting another explanation. This one doesn't make sense.
...rotating a FWD car by slamming the breaks is definately fun, but the frequency of being able to do this on real roads is almost nill compared to the fun of locking in turns in a RWD car. I loved the Mazda6 because, when not throttling, the car drifts, and even sometimes oversteers.
Wait a minute. Mazda6 isn't a RWD, is it? Are you in or around Dallas? Let me know because I can demonstrate "everyday" rotation in my front driver. That said, can you elaborate on "the frequency of being able to do this on real roads"?
Okay, but that does not equate to failure. Does it? What about Audi?
The IS300 could be perceived as a success
Compared to what? Remember, we're comparing here.