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.
Options

Acura TSX

1343537394099

Comments

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Engine:
    Honda is offering a few variations of two engines in Japan. K20A (2.0 liter I-4 used in RSX) is the base engine, and good for 155 HP /141 lb.-ft. The upper trims of the car are designated as 24T, 24TL and 24S. These trims use the K24A (2.4 liter I-4, used in American Accord, CRV) and are rated at 200 HP / 171 lb.-ft (FWD) and 190 HP / 168 lb.-ft (AWD). This is also the engine used in the Accord Wagon. And then there is the lightweight performance version, Euro-R, using the K20A for 220 HP / 152 lb.-ft.

    Acura TSX uses the K24A.

    Features:
    Accord 24T is the basic version with 'touring' chassis tuning. The springs are softer, wheels are smaller (same as American Accord with 16 inch rims), and comes with options. Accord 24TL is the luxury variation of 24T (Touring Luxury), with long list of standard features and some new optional features (adaptive cruise control, electronic card entry system, lane management system etc.).
    Accord 24S is 'Sport' equivalent of 24T. The chassis tuning is for performance and apparently, it uses the same setup as Euro-R. This comes with 17-inch rims.

    None of the 24-series Accords are offered with manual transmission.

    Accord Euro-R is also reasonably equipped, but it is the performance version with about 150-200 lb. off the curb weight and the screaming engine from Integra Type-R (220 HP @ 8000 rpm, 152 lb.-ft @ 6000 rpm). 6-speed manual transmission (also shared with the ITR) is standard as no automatic transmission is offered.

    Acura TSX would be along the lines of combining 24TL and 24S, or in other words, 24TL-S. The only other major difference is that the Japanese Accords use electric power steering instead of the conventional power steering.

    In Europe, Honda is selling an Accord Type-S (with K24A delivering 190 HP, 164 lb.-ft via 6-speed manual or 5-speed auto), but its Type-S package is more about cosmetics than chassis tuning. In other words, sport package is not a factory option in Europe at this time.

    I hope this answers your question.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    TopGear (UK) ranks its best

    European Accord took the honors in the midsize (medium) category.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "The new Accord - and it is all new - is full of vigour." - Top Gear

    Kinda funny given that the TSX version fills a slot not unlike the old Vigor.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    I finally got to test drive a 6 speed.

    First I have to say that it was the best Acura dealership experience I have ever had. I called ahead, was greeted promptly, and treated courteously. I was told immediately that they are the only dealership in the area not charging a premium over MSRP, and they are willing to throw in small extras to seal the deal.

    Now the car...I liked the TSX a lot. It is very handsome in person, and the interior is very high quality and attractive, although a few cheap plastic trim pieces in unimportant areas is a sign of cost cutting, but perfectly acceptable.

    The car is faster than I was expecting based on some other reports...about 7 secs to 60 by my seat of the pants. It is adequate below 3000 RPM but has good power above that...and it is a sweet, easy revving engine.

    Handling was very flat, with just a hint of oversteer (yes, oversteer) when I took a decreasing radius on-ramp at about 8/10ths. It felt solid and tight, and did not feel like a "heavy" car.

    The only real negative (and it's a pretty big one to me) is that the TSX didn't excite me. It does everything very well, and is a good value for the money, but it is uninspiring. It looks, sounds, shifts, feels, rides, and corners like a well put together Honda Accord...which in fact, it is.

    It's a terrific, sporty sedan that does everything well and on paper, beats every other <$30K car in this class. It just doesn't have any soul.

    Still, at $27,000 for a car with this level of performance, features, and quality, it may be hard to pass up.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    now come on. how can you say the tsx is faster than expected? you're just one of those armchair reviewers like me reading up on all that honda proganda.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Thanks for the review, Fedlawman. I'm still waiting for the local dealers to get the right collection of cars so that I can compare the TSX, Mazda 6, and Audi A4 on the same day. Pretty soon I'm going to chalk it up to a loss and just make the comparisons on separate dates.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    Venus537 - I said, "is faster than I was expecting..." I drove it. I liked it. End of story.

    Varmint - I hope you can do that. I will say that, at $27,000, the TSX immediately knocked the 9-3 and A4 off my list.
  • markjennmarkjenn Member Posts: 1,142
    http://home.attbi.com/~bernhard36/honda-ad.html

    This is the first time I had seen that the Euro Accord has a wagon version. Now I've got another excuse to remain on the fence - waiting for Acura to import the wagon. Could be a long wait.

    - Mark
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    That thing is hideous! Acura would never bring that thing here.

    M
  • SporinSporin Member Posts: 1,066
    I disagree.. the Euro Accord Wagon in the amazing "cog" ad is a car I would buy. I think it looks great. :-)
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    Love the wagon - it would be the only reason I would consider the TSX, otherwise I would prefer the larger, more fuel efficient Accord LX w/ manual tranny (would like EX- but the sunroof makes it too small). Now if only the would bring over the Accord Wagon!
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Unfortunately, Accord Wagon is designed for more utility (boasts 25% more cargo volume than Passat), at some expense of rear style (it is boxier, like the old Volvo V70). In America, IMO, wagons will only sell if they were more about style than utility. But I like the features that Honda has offered in the wagon (includes everything from power hatch to open/close, one touch fold down seats as is seen in the Euro commercial, rear view camera that Lexus is using to advertise its new RX, 110V power outlet in the cargo area and so on).
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Honda is supposedly considering an Acura crossover based on the same platform as the CR-V and Element. (I'm not sure this is a wise idea, but that's another story.) So, I doubt that they would bring over another vehicle offering similar utility in the same price range. The bottom of the Acura lineup is already plenty crowded and we all know the top of the line is badly neglected.
  • gearhead10gearhead10 Member Posts: 84
    Based on some of the things said in some reviews here, I also thought the TSX's accel was a little better than I expected, just not anything to get excited about. I'm not sure about 7 sec to 60. Outstanding smoothness for an I4 and flat handling. I thought it had some understeer though--not as much as some previous Acuras and Hondas which were, in some cases, severe--definitely an improvement but still there. A well-balanced FWD car IMO though.

    I think you hit it on the head when you said "the TSX didn't excite me. It does everything very well, and is a good value for the money, but it is uninspiring." Even though I did like it, I still wanted to like it more than I did. Didn't have the "I WANT this car" feeling after driving it. Try driving an A4 quattro, I preferred it but for more a couple more $K.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    i agree with you. i was being very sarcastic.
  • estevef1estevef1 Member Posts: 22
    FYI Just got the full brochure last night: it says Premium unleaded 91 octane is "recommended" but one can use lower than 91 "with reduced performance".
  • himilerhimiler Member Posts: 1,209
    The TSX has to be revved to get out of its own way, which means you'll want the premium fuel.

    Why bother buying an expensive, high-winding engine and not get all you can from it? You can run less than 91 octane in my Prelude, too, and it saps the power. For the difference of ~$3.00 per tank, it's an example of being penny wise and pound foolish.
  • hunter001hunter001 Member Posts: 851
    If the engine is designed for premium (very high compression engines), I think it is advisable to put premium in. When it says "with reduced performance" etc., what it really means is that with sophisticated knock sensors, it is possible to avoid too much damage to the engine (through knocking) by adjusting ignition advance significantly, in effect forcing the car to perform sub-optimally by operating below the knock threshold. Take it to high-rpms, and it is courting trouble. Typical failure modes include cracked pistons lands, impaired piston rings, damaged head gaskets, bent rods and, at times, shattered pistons. There is only so much that knock-sensors can do....some knocks would nevertheless sneak in.

    Why not go for some other engine that is designed for regular, if that is an important criteria ??

    Later...AH
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Recommending premium and making it optional means the engine was designed well enough to take lower grade gasoline. Sometimes, it could be the other way around too, as has been claimed for Accord V6. If that engine were recommended with premium grade, that wouldn't mean the engine will start disintegrating if regular was used.

    TSX's engine is running 10.5:1 compression, which has become a norm to some extent. Very high compression engines (like 11.0+:1 used in S2000, M3 etc.) may not even be recommended with regular grade, premium only.

    That said, I wouldn't mind premium grade. TSX/auto is rated at 23/32 mpg. Assuming mixed driving (50-50) to get 27.5 mpg, 1000 mile would cost $55 here in Texas using regular (87 octane @ $1.50/g), and $61 using premium (93 octane @ $1.70/g). Likewise, Accord V6 (21/30 mpg) would cost $59 with regular, negligible difference.
  • hunter001hunter001 Member Posts: 851
    If we do a comparison between TSX manual (19/29 with premium) vs Honda Accord 4-cylinder manual (26/34 with regular), the dollars start adding up much quicker.

    Depending on how much the engine management system adjusts the ignition advance to operate under the knock threshold, we could have an engine rated at 200Hp, possibly operating at 145-160HP, with regular fuel, if the engine management system is designed to prevent any knock whatsoever from happening (I think Honda being a concervative company, certainly would go this route than have failing engines). Now the question is, whether it is designed to operate "a bit under the knock threshold" or "safely under the knock threshold" or "well under the knock threshold for longevity of the engine" ???

    I think it is advisable to stick with premium, if an engine is designed for it. Putting regular in, in an emergency (and driving moderately with the regular in the car) is a different matter altogether.

    Later...AH
  • markjennmarkjenn Member Posts: 1,142
    Everything I've read says that you can safely use regular in a car designed for premium if the mfg says its Ok and you're willing to accept a small decrease in performance, roughly equivalent to the amount you save (e.g., spend 10% less on gas and you'll get 10% less peak hp).

    Engines knock under hot/high-power situations, so there are scenarios where you don't need all the performance the engine can deliver (e.g. a long freeway drone at moderate speeds) so you could use regular, save some money, and there would be no consequence.

    But in general, paying more for a high-performance car so that you can make it run like a cheaper low-performance car makes little sense to me. Having said this, many people spend huge premiums to purchase cars with capabilities totally beyond their usage ... for example, most of the people buying Hummers these days.

    - Mark
  • hunter001hunter001 Member Posts: 851
    Interestingly, a fews days back when the Lancer Evolution was dyno-tested, this is what they found.

    Stock HP: 271HP (at the crank as per specs)
    Dyno-test in Michigan: 240HP (at the wheels)
    Dyno-test in California: 188HP (at the wheels)

    In both the Michigan and the California tests, multiple cars were tested and all of them yielded their HP ratings within a couple of HP to each other, thus eliminating any vehicle variances.

    From 271HP, a loss of 31hp at the wheels (in the Michigan test) was a normal situation, due to driveline losses.

    But at 188hp at the wheels in California, there was a driveline loss of 83hp, which was a lot.

    The reason ?

    93 Octane premium available in Michigan vs 91 Octane premium in California. The engine management system had adjusted the ignition advance aggressively to counter the lower octane rating (to protect the engine), since the EVO was a high-strung engine made for running at the highest octane rating possible.

    Later...AH
  • hmurphyhmurphy Member Posts: 278
    Most of you seem to be comparing vehicles based on engine performance, etc. When I was deciding which new car to buy, I narrowed my choices to the Accord EX-V6 and Acura TSX based on safety features and Honda's reputation for reliability. Both come with side curtain airbags and traction control and both did well in crash tests (I checked international results for the Honda Accord version of the TSX).

    I didn't care that much about the engine power. I wouldn't have compared the TSX to the four-cylinder Accord, because that model doesn't come with curtain airbags.

    I ended up with the Accord EX-V6 because it provided about the same safety features as the TSX for, in my case, about $4000 less.

    I never considered Passat/Audi (reliability) or Mazda (just didn't). Camry was out due to poor side impact ratings.

    Just pointing out that some comparisons are made for reasons other than horsepower and torque.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    You got an Accord EX-V6 for $23,000?

    How did you get below invoice pricing?
  • hmurphyhmurphy Member Posts: 278
    I shopped around. The CR Wholesale Price is $22,901, so I worked from that amount. The exact price was $23,400 (about $3500 less than the TSX).
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    W/ a tall top gear, 2000rpm@60mph, the auto TSX is barely lugging at low vacumn while cruising on the fwy. Running low octane will force down-shifts frequently.

    It's a waste of energy compressing at high ratio then wait till the piston drops before the ignition. What for? Both power & fuel economy are ruined.

    Unless you calculate the price-difference of the high-octane fuel as higher than the trade off.

    Ooo..., see that Evol's whopping-over-50hp drop from 93 to 91 octane?
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Member Posts: 3,387
    My GS300 requires (theres a notice on the speedo) premium and gets 23 mpg on a ggod day. It's slower than the TSX too. Doesn't keep me from loving that car though. If you can't/don't want to afford the premium, don't buy the car. It ain't for you. Just like if I thought the GS was to much of a slug, it wasn't for me.
  • 3449gabi3449gabi Member Posts: 5
    I used to own a 2001 G 20 and although I loved the car I was disappointed of the lack of horse power. The car was very nice and well equipped for the price. I was waiting to get a G35 but my budget was less than 28,000 so I was hoping to wait for a well equipped used or a stripped new one. I also wait for the new Mazda 6, and even with a more powerful engine I was not that exited and didn't felt to me that I was upgrading my car, that is until I saw the TSX in a magazine in February and it became my obsession.
        I had never been in an auto show, but I wait until March(I live in Atlanta) to see the car in person and in terms of styling I made my decision that day. I wait until the first week of April and I drove a white with parchment interior with navi and I finally was done looking for the car of my dreams(29,000 dream). I liked the brushed chrome trim better(plastic) but I felt that I could not handle a black leather interior and the quartz looks too gray/blue to me.
         Came back a few days later and the same guy start the tedious process of negotiations. I was aware that I was going to loose money on the G20, but I didn't want to loose that much, so I left that day with no car, no problem. I told the sales person that if they were not comming down on the price of the car I want more for my G20 and for him to call me with a better offer. He did call me but not with a better offer. So I went to another dealer and when a female sales person approach me about the car I was honest with her and I told her to not waste my time and hers if she could't do better. She gave me 800.00 more for my G20, the dealer manager took the white/parchment home, so they had to bring it back and I walk away that day with what I belive is one of the best car for the money.
         I did consider the V-6 Accord with navi, but I have problems with the styling, and been so new, a year old and been sold at invoice or less. Also consider the A-4 but you can't get a well equipped one unless you go with a more powerful engine, and the navigation system in this one is one of the most sofisticated and with over 7,000,000 points of interests. Besides been a navi with voice reconition system, it has and advance trip computer, you can store up to 100 personal names, addresses with phone numbers per user(two users) and the system will take you to those places. I'm a designer and I have to go to at least 15 times a month to clients homes,also it has a calculator, etc and the list go on and on. In terms of fuel economy in the city/freeway I'm getting 24 miles a gallon, and I took it to Callaway Gardens, 94 miles mostly on the freeway and it gave me 33.4 miles a gallon. I could go to Orlando 440 miles away and not even fill the tank once, that's were my saving are.
      The future in the cars are in the information computers with navi like this one. So I don't think this is unnecessary like some of you belive and until few years ago were paying so much money for a 1.8 litter BMW with not even a single CD player or power seats, at that point you guys called it a gadget and today a 6-cd changer is a selling/buying point. Trust me this is a fun car.
  • alex1298alex1298 Member Posts: 8
    Right on hmurphy. My lease runs out in July, and I am, too, trying to decide between Accord EXV6 and TSX. I have two little guys at home, and safety and reliability is my first and foremost concern. Frankly, all this technical talk is beyond me...

    Did the lack of VSA in Accord concern you? What is the exact configuration for your Accord?

    Thanks,
    Al
  • himilerhimiler Member Posts: 1,209
    "today a 6-cd changer is a buying/selling point."

    For some buyers, perhaps. Personally, I've never understood the need for this feature in a car since there are more moving parts, making it more likely to fail than a single-disc player. And after all, you can only listen to one CD at a time.

    Congrats on your new car! It sounds like you'll be getting lots of use out of the Navi system.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Member Posts: 3,387
    Works fine and sounds great. I wouldn't live without a multidisc changer.
  • markjennmarkjenn Member Posts: 1,142
    This is off-subject, but I got to chime in.

    I have a 98 GS300 with an glove-box-mounted 6-disc magazine. The thing is a total PITA.

    With a single disk player, you can head out the door and grab a CD on the way. Pop it in and listen. When you get home, pop it back out, put it back in the jewel case and be done with it. I listen to my whole CD collection.

    With the magazine changers, putting a disc in take several minutes and involves keeping little plastic trays oriented correctly in the magazine, making sure the disc is put in correctly, etc. It is such a PITA that I avoid doing it. Doing it in traffic would be the safety equivalent of drunk driving. So I attempt to pick six CDs that are good for a few weeks, but invariably, I get really tired of them all before I feel like changing them again. And when you change all six, you've got six jewel cases rattling around which invariably find their way back into the CD collection, meaning that you spend 15-minutes refiling CDs when you do a six-disc changeout. Or you leave the six jewel cases in the car where they love to rattle around in a cubby somewhere.

    The in-dash changers like the TSX (without magazines) are probably a lot better and I assume they can be used like a single-disc changer. It would not matter to me a whit if the car didn't have the changer.

    This is definitely one of those things where one person's passion is another's poison.

    - Mark
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 265,425
    most of the new cars now have a single feed six disc changer in dash... best of both worlds.

    kyfdx

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    If we do a comparison between TSX manual (19/29 with premium) vs Honda Accord 4-cylinder manual (26/34 with regular), the dollars start adding up much quicker.

    The difference would be there even if TSX used regular. The difference would be there if the buyer chose Accord V6/manual as well (which is advertised to use regular, but premium can be used for extra power). That said, TSX/manual and Accord I-4/manual are two very different cars. One is tuned for performance the other is not. And a lot of compact-economy cars would have tough time matching the mileage that one could get from Accord I-4, anyway.

    Depending on how much the engine management system adjusts the ignition advance to operate under the knock threshold, we could have an engine rated at 200Hp, possibly operating at 145-160HP, with regular fuel

    Output usually doesn't drop like a rock. 1999-2001 Odyssey was rated at 210 HP / 229 lb.-ft with premium (205 HP, 217 lb.-ft with regular), with its relatively low compression engine (9.6:1). With MY2002 changes, the compression was up to 10.0:1, gasoline recommendation was regular, and the output is 240 HP / 242 lb.-ft. Accord V6 with premium grade apparently delivers 250 HP, and the output drops to about 240 HP with regular.

    Now the question is, whether it is designed to operate "a bit under the knock threshold" or "safely under the knock threshold" or "well under the knock threshold for longevity of the engine" ???

    I would say, an automaker like Honda, who takes pride in its engines, will have it all figured out. There is no need to panic unless they suggest against something and we choose to not follow. If they say regular can be used, it CAN be used.

    The reason ?
    93 Octane premium available in Michigan vs 91 Octane premium in California. The engine management system had adjusted the ignition advance aggressively to counter the lower octane rating (to protect the engine), since the EVO was a high-strung engine made for running at the highest octane rating possible.


    High strung or not, turbo engines (especially high pressure as it is in EVO) are more finicky about gasoline grade. Any higher, and racing fuel may be required. The effective compression runs several times higher than any normally aspirated engine.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    hmurphy
    Congratulations on your new purchase. One safety feature that differs is that Accord comes with traction control and TSX has stability control (traction + yaw control).

    Did $23,400 you paid is inclusive of destination charge?

    3449gabi
    Congrats! Keep us posted of your experiences. Looks like you got one with NAV.

    himiler
    Personally, I've never understood the need for this feature in a car since there are more moving parts, making it more likely to fail than a single-disc player. And after all, you can only listen to one CD at a time.

    Cars by themselves are not getting simpler. More features, more cylinders (!), more airbags and more is becoming less. As far as CD changers are concerned, while one can listen to only one CD at a time, it takes away the need to change as frequently as I have to (my 98 Accord came with single disc, and it took another two years before Honda offered 6-disc in-dash CD changer as a standard feature in EX/EXV6).
  • hmurphyhmurphy Member Posts: 278
    It's true that the TSX has VSA. As I understand it, however, VSA is intended to help mainly stability during cornering.

    You see, here in Illinois, we don't have corners. We have long, straight roadways, and we have intersections with traffic lights, where you have to slow down anyway.

    There is, therefore, no need for VSA. Traction control is helpful, though, since snow and ice can make even those long, straight roadways treacherous.

    If I lived in Northern California, where I grew up, and was able to drive those twisty mountain roads, VSA would be an important feature. Here in the Land of Lincoln, however, it won't have much opportunity to help me out.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Member Posts: 3,387
    12 cd's can last me a month. Right now I have all of the Digweed Bros CD's loaded up. Next week may be Drum @ Bass, then maybe Basia, Midnight Oil, Trance Compilations. I mean when you got 2000 CD's, a single disc player is a hassle.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Given that the manual Altima 2.5 only gets 23-29 mpg, I don't think the TSX is doing all that badly.
  • creakid1creakid1 Member Posts: 2,032
    "'If we do a comparison between TSX manual (19/29 with premium) vs Honda Accord 4-cylinder manual (26/34 with regular), the dollars start adding up much quicker.'

    The difference would be there even if TSX used regular."

    I believe EPA still shifts at their preset mph points regardless of the gear ratios, by assuming us drivers are too clumsy to adjust to the close-ratio box accordingly.

    Therefore, TSX's real MT mpg shouldn't be that much lower than Accord's. But then, putting regular in the TSX should lower the mpg.
  • ecoeco Member Posts: 23
    I think the owner's manual specifies 91 as the minimum grade. Why does the brochure state that regular is allowed?
  • gearhead10gearhead10 Member Posts: 84
    I have a 2000 GS300 with probably the exact same 6-cd changer--I know what you mean. Way easier to keep a bunch of cds in a carrying case and just pop one in a single disc player instead. I just try to keep enough cds in the glove box and load the cartridge with the ones I feel like listening to before I start driving. Like you said, impossible to change safely while driving. Doesn't even have direct track access and is slow to change to a different cd. Really wish it had an in-dash changer.
  • stretchsjestretchsje Member Posts: 700
    I think the owner's manual specifies 91 as the minimum grade. Why does the brochure state that regular is allowed?

    Because the brochure is trying to sell you something.

    Well, that and it is recommended, just not required. They were most certainly written by different people with different ideas of what is acceptable- my guess. Just as some manufacturers say only to use their own brand oil filters, etc.

    Come to think of it- how 'bout new cars recommending 5w-20 oil? They do that to boost mileage by a small fraction of a mile per gallon, but it actually isn't best for the engine. Similar situation- different people, with different motivations and experiences, will recommend different things.

    In regards to CD changers- yuck.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I used to think they were redundant too. But since getting the CL-S with the 6-CD changer, I now pick six CD's, pop them in and leave them there for a couple of weeks, changing between CD's and the radio. The hardest part is actually picking 6 CD's that I care to listen to for a couple of weeks. I don't have a gazillion CDs to choose from like Mr. Gee does. :)
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    I realize the TSX has a more potent engine, and tighter gearing, but I wonder how much it really gains over the (lighter) Accord in a 0-60 run. Is it worth losing 5 mpg and dealing with a high revving engine on the highway just to save a 1/2 second in a race to 60 - which most of us have probably outgrown.

    I for one would be fine with the engine and gearing straight out of the Accord, or even better a true six speed (not a close ratio one) that is slightly tighter than the Accord, but still has a taller sixth gear.

    It would be well worth it to me to have to shift down once in a while going up a long hill, if I would have a nice relaxed engine most of the time. The Automatic is barely over 2,000 rpm at 60 why must the manual be nearly 2,500?
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Member Posts: 3,387
    and flexibility. There's more to the car than 0-60. It's a very narrow way to judge the car.
  • himilerhimiler Member Posts: 1,209
    The 6-spd. Celica GTS has a very tall overdrive 6th gear, and still does 0-60 in well under 7 seconds. Sure, you have to downshift to get the juices flowing, but where's the rub in that? If you don't like to shift, buy the slushbox.

    If Acura wants to continue to use 6-spd. trannys, it would be wise to keep the first five cogs close-ratio and adopt a "highway crawler" overdrive.

    OTOH, my Prelude is turning just over 4,000RPM @ 80MPH, so a busy engine doesn't bug me too much. But, were there an aftermarket 6-spd. with a tall overdrive available, I'd line up to buy it.
  • fredvhfredvh Member Posts: 857
    Can anyone tell me what the RPM are on the TSX with automatic transmission at exactly 70 mph?
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    During the short time I had my Y2K Prelude, my impression was that the car just BEGGED for 6th gear. I was in 5th gear quite a bit just driving around town. A 6th gear would have made for much more pleasant highway cruising.
  • markjennmarkjenn Member Posts: 1,142
    Honda's selection of gear ratios for the trannys in the TSX is, like everything else, a compromise between a wide-ratio transmission with a very tall 6th gear and a close-ratio transmission with smaller jumps between gears. A close-ratio transmission provides a better chance of having "just the right gear" for aggressive driving, particularly in the twisties, and slightly reduces 0-60 times.

    Given that Honda already has cars more oriented towards smoother freeway cruising, their decision to go more towards the close-ratio side is understandable and I think a good design decision.

    Keep in mind that a car with a very tall high gear will require a lot of downshifting during routine passing maneuvers. Given that the engine doesn't have a great deal of torque below 3K and is smooth, I think a few extra revs on the highway, while making the car slightly more noisy, are probably a good price to pay for better response.

    An E36 M3 is very responsive on the highway, but part of the reason is very short gearing. I believe it turns around 2700 RPM at 60 mph. If you have a smooth engine, it is not a big deal.

    - Mark
  • himilerhimiler Member Posts: 1,209
    "If you have a smooth engine, it is not a big deal."

    Which is why I don't mind how busy my Prelude is in 5th gear. But, smooth or not, a busy engine is a thirsty engine.

    A taller 6th cog in the TSX just makes sense to me, since it's not a "track car," and most hard acceleration is long since over by the time you get past 4th.
This discussion has been closed.