Acura TSX

dudleyr

All this talk of 0-60 times reminds me even more that the Accord does 0-60 in 7.7 seconds according to Moter Trend (with the 4 cyl and 5-speed).

I was very high on the TSX for a while, but now consider the larger more efficient and just about as quick Accord to be more suitable to my needs. The TSX may handle a hair better, but going plus 1 on the Accord w/ summer rubber (use snows for winter) would probly help a lot in the handling dept. Besides I have never been able to fit in a Honda that has a sunroof.

I totally agree with the poster who said the car only has 200 hp so that people can say that magic number when asked - it really does not make the car that fast especially considering all that power comes at such high revs.

I wonder what happened to the 2.5 liter v-6 that used to be in the Legend. That would probably get better mpg and have more torque than the 2.4 I4 (hp would probably be the same) if they tuned it to todays standards.

uncledavid

The other side of the engine issue is that the 4-cyl in the Accord is reasonably quick. The four should power the TSX fine, it just won't provide sporty levels of acceleration.

hunter001

Actually, I think the engine is 2.2 L VTEC. It is a 1996 Accord Ex. Has something like 145 hp/147 torque. Weights somewhere in the range of 2,900.

I think the DX version came with a different engine (2.2L?) but the EX came with the 2.3L, that debuted in the Acura 2.3CL, with 150HP. The Accord 3.0L V6, originally appeared in the Acura 3.0CL.

If that is the engine present in your car, then I feel the TSX should prove to be much better. The new Accord would also go up that hill as well as the TSX.

Also, if you are at a high altitude, remember that normally aspirated engines (unlike Turbo or Supercharged engines), run out of steam pretty quickly. The higher you go, the worse it becomes. If that is so, then the TSX/NewAccord would be affected pretty badly too, and would not perform anywhere close to their performance in lower altitudes. A Turbo engine would not be affected by altitude, however.

Later...AH

markjenn

The problem is that very few factory car turbos are set up to increase turbo boost with altitude. They run cheaper fixed wastegates rather than variable wastegates with absolute pressure controllers. So they always boost a fixed amount over whatever the ambient pressure is, rather than increasing boost as ambient pressure descreases with altitude. The net effect is that power decreases with altitude, just like on a NA car.

- Mark

creakid1

"The net effect is that power decreases with altitude, just like on a NA car."

There's about 14psi normal atmospheric pressure at sea level. A turbo/super charger probably add somewhere between 10 to 20 more psi. But that 10 to 20 psi is unaffected by the altitude change. Only the "original 14psi" portion is changed. So a forced-fed engine is not affected as much by thin air.

hunter001

I stated the above, based on my observation with my Turbo WRX and my normally aspirated 2000 Acura 3.2TL.

The 3.2TL does fabulously at lower altitudes with ample passing power at all speeds, but there is a noticeable degradation in performance, when driven at very high altitudes. This performance degradation, is observable with all normally aspirated engines.

When driving the Turbo-WRX at those altitudes, there is absolutely no difference between the performance at either low or high altitudes.

At higher altitudes, the turbo WRX rockets up mountain passes that have the normally high-powered, normally aspirated 3.2TL wheezing. The performance difference between the 2 cars at higher altitudes, is not even close. HUGE difference !! The turbo is in its elements at higher altitudes, while the 3.2TL is like a fish out of water.

At lower altitudes, the 3.2TL and the WRX perform nearly the same, with a slight edge going to the WRX.

Later...AH

robertsmx

(Auto) TSX is geared 11% shorter and has 13% stronger torque output (that is considering peak only, and the torque difference will be greater at lower rpm since the K24A is more advanced than the old 2.2 liter I-4 SOHC VTEC in Accord EX). Although TSX weighs about 300 lb. more than the old Accord EX, the additional 25+% (overall effect from gearing and stronger torque curve) should more than make up for it.

robertsmx

it really does not make the car that fast especially considering all that power comes at such high revs.

Peak horsepower is useful, in any car, when it comes to all out acceleration, such as overtaking a slower vehicle on a two lane highway or merging with a fast moving traffic. Those instances, with proper selection of gear, will keep the revs up high and the advantage in horsepower comes into play.

I don't consider TSX as having high revving engine since it redlines at only 7100 rpm (consider that the V6 in Accord and TL-S redline at 6800-6900 rpm as well) and given that Jaguar X-Type gets 194 HP at the same engine speed from its 2.5 liter V6. And especially since we can assume that it will show no reluctance to rev high when the drive train decides to (note: the driver doesn't rev the engine high, he just selects the right gear if it is a manual transmission, or lets the computer do it if it is full automatic).

Consider this perspective: TSX develops 170+ HP at 5500 rpm and about 185 HP at 6000 rpm, very much like BMW 325 (the two cars have identical weight, but BMW auto is geared shorter while TSX manual is geared shorter). Accord manages to get to 160 HP at 5500 rpm. Audi A4/1.8T manages 170 HP at 5900 rpm.

I wonder what happened to the 2.5 liter v-6 that used to be in the Legend. That would probably get better mpg and have more torque than the 2.4 I4 (hp would probably be the same) if they tuned it to todays standards.

Not the old Legend engine, but Honda has a 2.5 liter V6 (belongs to the J-series family of V6 engines used in Accord/TL/Odyssey/Pilot/MDX). It is rated at 200 HP @ 6200 rpm, 178 lb.-ft @ 4600 rpm and is the base engine in Japanese TL (Inspire/Saber). This engine replaced the old 2.5-liter I-5 (used in Vigor/2.5TL) in 1999.

If J25A were offered in TSX, it would have shared the transmission(s) with Accord V6, which means taller gearing, so the small torque advantage would disappear (more so with the manual transmission). And even though it displaces only 140 cc more than the K24A (which, BTW, is rated at 200 HP @ 6800 rpm, 171 lb.-ft in Japan), I doubt it will get better mileage. TSX mileage estimates are not posted yet on the EPA website, but I saw the sticker quoting 23/32 mpg with auto transmission, which is better than my 1998 Accord I-4 (23/30 mpg) and lower than 24/33 mpg for the 2003 Accord.

J25A will probably add another 75 lb. on the nose as well.

robertsmx

There's about 14psi normal atmospheric pressure at sea level. A turbo/super charger probably add somewhere between 10 to 20 more psi. But that 10 to 20 psi is unaffected by the altitude change. Only the "original 14psi" portion is changed. So a forced-fed engine is not affected as much by thin air.

A forced induction engine will be affected unless it can increase the boost as the air gets thinner. If a 2.0 liter turbo charged engine is capable of pumping 200 HP under optimum conditions with certain amount of boost (say, 8 psi), as the condition worsen, the output will go down unless the boost increases.

BTW, 10 to 20 psi is actually a little too much in production cars. Most should be around 5-8 psi.

Speaking of forced induction, it will be interesting to see what Comptech does with K24A, especially in TSX. The latest C&D has an article in Comptech Acura CL-S, running 4.5 psi boost and with a few other tweaks, the output is up from 260 HP (stock) to 369 HP. The J32A in CL-S/TL-S is also compressed at 10.5:1 (hence the low boost).

robertsmx

Is your WRX manual, or automatic?

uncledavid

hunter001 - the 1996 generation of Accord has the 2.2 liter across the model line (at least in 4-cyl variants). The DX and LX had a 130 HP version, the EX had a VTEC engine with about 10 more HP. The next generation of Accords went to the 2.3 engine, but the car also grew larger and heavier.

Robetsmx - Thanks for the information. That was very helpful.

I have to say that I have yet to read a single post in this thread that is thoughtful and informative.

markjenn

I haven't been able to determine if the WRX increases boost at altitude or not. With the sophisticated engine eletronics in today's cars, it may not be a simple answer anymore - they may adjust turbo boost according to a wide variety of factors.

I just wanted to make sure that people didn't automatically think that just because a car has a turbo motor, that it automatically was a superior car at high altitude. It all depends on how it is set up. Certainly your experience indicates that the WRX performs well at altitude. And all NA car engines will suffer at altitude at a very predicatable rate - a couple percent with each 1K feet of altitude.

- Mark

uncledavid

The WRX has most of its power at higher RPMs, so I wonder if that has anything to do with its performance at higher altitudes.

hunter001

BTW, 10 to 20 psi is actually a little too much in production cars. Most should be around 5-8 psi.

Actually, most are well over 5-8 psi. It all depends on the internals of the engine and how much it is built to take.

Turbo friendly engines have a compression ratio of around 7-9. The WRX/WRX STi have a compression ratio of 8.

The new Mitsubishi EVO runs around 19.2psi of turbo boost, which is why it is at a super high state of tune.

The WRX STi with its 300hp/300Torque engine, runs around 14psi of maximum boost. During regular runs, the boost may be minimal but during a high altitude rocketing exercise, it might go upto its full boost.

The regular WRX runs around 13psi of maximum boost.

In other words, during a regular fast drive at lower altitudes, the turbo does not introduce as much boost as at higher altitudes, since it is not needed. Higher boost comes on at higher altitudes or during wide open throttle (WOT).

Later...AH

hunter001

The WRX is an Automatic. Bought it initially for my wife and I was supposed to drive the larger Acura, but now we fight over who gets to drive the WRX. I never thought a lady would love to drive a relatively firmer riding, tight handling vehicle like the WRX, while eschewing a soft rider like the 3.2TL and had hoped to make the WRX my daily driver.

With the rear biased power distribution in the Automatic WRX (Manual WRX has a 50/50 split with a cheaper Viscous coupler as the center differential), it is a lot of fun scooting along twisty mountain roads with the velcro like grip from the 4 tires clawing the terrain for traction. The center differential is a Dual-planetary gear (available currently in the WRX STi but not the manual WRX) and is oriented towards performance driving, since it shifts to a 15/85 front/rear power split while accelerating and retains a 45/55 front/rear split (Japanese models have 36/64) for normal driving....and every other distribution in between, depending on conditions. The rear LSD also can be felt kicking in at times.

Later...AH

hunter001

The WRX has most of its power at higher RPMs, so I wonder if that has anything to do with its performance at higher altitudes.

The WRX has as much power as a regular 2.0L DOHC Normally aspirated engine, below 2500rpms but above that, it builds power like a 4.0L V8, which is what allows it to scoot to 60mph in around 5.2-5.8 secs.

If you notice the torque/hp graph, the power build-up is very linear, except for the torque curve which is flat, all over the power band, with 90% of the peak torque (217 lbs/ft) available from around 2500rpm to its almost 7000rpm redline.

Later...AH

hunter001

The amount of low-end torque in the WRX STi, where at least 90% of its peak torque (300lbs/ft) is available from around 2000rpm to its redline at 7K+ rpm (Redline in the Japanese STi is 8000+rpm), allows it to rocket to its 4.6secs 0-60 and 13.1secs@110mph?? quarter mile time. Of course all of this is aided by Continuously variable valve timing and lift and the turbo.

All that power is managed by the Torque-sensing LSD in the front, Torque-sensing LSD in the rear and the Dual-planetary gear center Differential, routed through the 6-speed manual transmission, that is rated to safely take around 500+ HP/Torque. Things like the standard HIDs, Automatic climate control, velcro like sport buckets etc are just icing on the cake, with this car.

It would be a challenge to have THAT engine in a front wheel drive product. A RWD could definitely take it, however.

Unfortunately, Subaru is importing only 3600 of those from Japan this year, and already dealers are marking up these with 5k-8k over MSRP.

Later...AH

bippy

I test drove an automatic TSX last night. The dealer didn't have a manual on the lot. I loved the looks and the way the car drove, but was not excited by the power. I don't expect this to be a fast car, but I expected better given the engine specs. Since I've never driven an auto 4 cyl. that I liked, I'm wondering if the manual TSX is a much better driving experience. I really want to like this car. Experienced feedback from those of you who have driven both an auto and manual TSX would be appreciated.

nicdmx

On the manual vs. auto, I too test drove an auto first. I like it but it didn't seem all that powerful, still pleasing to drive though. Then I drove the manual about a week and half to two weeks later and it was a lot of fun to drive....you can take this car right up into the high revs and it doesn't feel like you are straining the engine at all.

When I test drove the auto I still wasn't sure that this was the car I wanted, but when I test drove the manual I knew it was.

Of course my test drive in the auto had the dealer along and the test drive in the manual was just me....that could have made a differance, but I really think you will find the manual much more fun to drive, as I did.

iceman16

1. This is a beautiful car. My previous car was a 99 Accord, which I thought was quite handsome (still do). The TSX to me is a piece of moving sculpture.
2. The engine gets better as you drive it. I passed the 600 mile break-in point a week ago. Get out of first gear, put the pedal to the metal, and it flies. I do not push this car in the metro area -- the car is too fast, and the freeways are too crowded.
3. The gas mileage is about the same as my 99 Accord (4 cyl, 5 speed, 150 hp). I am averaging 25-29 mpg, which includes city, metro freeway, and one 600-mile trip at 70-80mph.
4. The overall impression is more luxury than sport. The dual temperature controls means my wife and I can finally enjoy a trip together without her having to wear a jacket in the car. The sound system is excellent, for an OEM system. The quietness at 80mph has to be experienced to be believed. The tilt/telescope steering wheel is a revelation! I have driven for decades with elbows straight, and now I can finally bring the wheel closer to me.
5. I have Honda's best transmission, but on a winding two-lane road in traffic, I ended up leaving it in 6th gear when passing lesser cars (you bet I looked down my nose at them!). Why downshift when it's so easy to pass without it?
6. The sports suspension and aggressive wheel/tire combination, excellent driver's seat with side bolsters, flexible engine, and almost complete absence of wind noise, all work together to allow me to feel quite comfortable driving fast at high speeds. This is a GT, not a sports car.
7. Would I buy it again? Are you kidding me? This car is a bargain at $27k.

iceman16

Honda could sell a lot more TSX's if there was a high-performance option. One of the Honda insiders at clubtsx claims that a performance-oriented TSX will be available by the end of next year. He gave no details. I am guessing he gave no details because they haven't decided yet what to do -- maybe import the Euro R from Japan? Maybe a performance hybrid with electrics driving the rears? A turbo would work, but it's not Honda's style. I am convinced that Honda will do SOMETHING, because it means they could sell more cars.
Personally, I think a V6 would ruin the TSX. The car is too front-heavy as it is. With a V6, you would gain straight-line performance and lose the outstanding handling.

iceman16

It depends on where you buy it. Again on clubtsx.com, a dealer from Vermont reports that he is sold out through July, at MSRP. He complains that Acura won't increase his allocation even though he could sell more if he could get more. In other parts of the country, you can get as much as a $1k discount, apparently because some dealers have more TSX's coming in than they can sell at MSRP.

iceman16

You found no posts that were thoughtful and informative?? I think you are mistaken sir. This thread reminds me of nothing less than the C-Span broadcasts of the British Parliament. I have learned a lot from following these debates, and you would too if you recognized it for what it was: people with true differences of opinion, able to articulate their points of view with more understanding of the engineering involved than I possess.
Didn't you ever attend a debate in High School?

himiler

With a V6, the automatic TSX would be the best Buick ever!

iceman16

Buick makes a GT? I must have missed something.

superman5

so people want to pay 27k for a 4 cylinder sedan with less than 150 torque? you have to be kidding me. I think \accord is a better buy, if you want something that sportier you can just put a stiffer spring/bigg rims, or go for TL for little more . Or really want sporty get c240 kompressor, at least that has RWD.

iceman16

The Accord is too big, too ugly, 5 speed, 40 less hp, noisier, smaller wheels and tires, no sports suspension, geared for gas mileage not acceleration, no HID's, no VSA, etc etc.

TSX torque is 166 lbs-ft of torque at 4500 rpm.

If all I wanted was sport I would have bought the WRX. Why would I buy an overpriced German car?

stretchsje

Let's assume completely flat torque curve. No car has this, but let's assume the TSX has one. For this explination, this will work in favor of the TSX, so just leave it alone.

Increasing torque is not that important at low revs. Increasing the torque by 15ft-lbs at 1500rpm only increases horspower by 4.3hp. Horsepower is what moves the car. The TSX improves upon the 4cyl Accord by only 5 ft-lbs, however, not 15, resulting in an almost nill horsepower improvement down low. Yet, the car weighs 200lbs more.

So, the TSX gets shorter gearing to make up for its lack of torque. As RobetSMX said, the gearing is 13% shorter. This effectively gives the car more torque to the WHEELS at any speed, but only because the engine is running at a higher RPM, thus creating more horsepower.

The engine, then, can only feel lively if you allow the engine to sit in these higher RPMs.

Horsepower is linear with RPMs, so at 0 RPM you make 0 horsepower, regardless of hypothetical torque approaching 0. At 5252 RPM, the engine makes an equal amount of torque and horsepower, and at 10,500 RPM, horsepower is double the amount of torque the engine is making.

The difference with the TSX is NOT that it has a bad powertrain design, but because drivers are accustomed to keeping the engine at certain RPMs. The TSX is slightly lower torque than its competition, but higher horsepower because it revs higher. It is geared accordingly, using its entire (larger) rev range in the same amount of time as other vehicles which do not cover as high of a rev range.

The difference between the TSX and a car that does not rev as high is the larger-than-average variance in horsepower. Compared to its competition, he TSX will make less horsepower down low and more up high. This large variance leaves the car feeling underpowered at low RPMs yet fast at high RPMs. However, "low" and "high" are not defined- if "high" is 6000rpm, you're not considering the TSX's entire rev range. "Low" and "high" RPMs, in your mind, must be redefined as higher limits, since the engine revs higher and is geared for this!

Those with the mentality that they must keep the tach below 3000 RPM will not get the driving experience the car was intended for, because the design is made to rev higher. Instead of coasting at 2000rpm and shifting at 3000rpm, cruise at 2300rpm and shift at 4500rpm- you're still shifting at the same point as a percentage of where the redline begins.

Bottom line: ignore the tach, and it'll feel fine.

I really think the powertrain is one of the strengths of the TSX, and it's the rest of the car that I'm not happy with. Yet, it seems to be the biggest complaint here.

bszeto

I really feel that the TSX, although very nicely finished and quite competent in a number of areas, doesn't quite make the grade for the class it competes in. Acura has put themselves in a situation like that of Mazda when they had the Millenia. The Millenia was a quick car at that time (with the Miller Cycle Engine), and until 2000, had an interior that could hold its own. The TSX is similarly quick with a novel engine, but it doesn't offer that "extra something" that the competitors have, other than price. The main point of this comparison is that Acura didn't study the competition closely enough. Also, the Millenia didn't know what role it should be in - luxo-cruiser (a la Lexus ES300) or sportier car (Acura TL). The same goes for TSX - sportier car (vs. BMW 3-series) or something more cushy (Mercedes C-class).

heymista

I test drove a TSX automatic last week and I was very impressed. It seems to have better build quality than my TL-S, and the responsiveness surprised me for a 4 cyl. It's obviously not as fast as mine, but it was very quick and the TSX seemed to accelerate with less effort than the TLS. The handling, braking, quickness, quiet cabin, smooth transmission, and general feel is impressive for a vehicle in this price range. I have had many problems with my TLS and I am only going to buy the TSX if the dealer works with me. I'll give Acura another chance if they work me a deal. Dealer seems to want to keep me satsified since I've been using his service center for everything. We'll see next week.

hunter001

I am surprised that you found that the TSX (that too an Automatic !!) "seemed to accelerate better" than the TL-s. This is at complete variance from my experience with the TSX.

I found the TSX to be very lethargic and sluggish especially with the Automatic. It could not compare anywhere close to my TL, let alone a TL-s. This is understandable, since it has got a "torque-challenged" engine, pulling along a 3300lb car.

Maybe you had a special Honda tuned version with higher HP/Torque figures than regular TSXs ??

Later...AH

heymista

Regarding acceleration comparisons with TL-S/TSX, I was refering to the effort the cars put forth while acceleration. To get maximum HP in my TL-s, I would need to hit the accelerator relatively hard. I find that the TSX is very nimble and responsive by comparison. Obviously with 260 hp, the TL-S is much faster and has better overall acceleration. If I drove my TL-S hard on a tank of gas, I would probably get around 18 MPG. I feel like the TSX is very responsive at lower RPMs by comparison. I will be able to achieve much better efficiency while still driving a car with a sporty feel. I did not find it sluggish in the least. I have noticed several 4 cyl cars that are putting out much more hp over the past few years. I rented a 4cyl toyota camry a few months ago, and I thought it was a v-6 until I opened the hood. I no longer feel the need for a more powerful V-6.

gee35coupe

I was driving our EX-L coupe yesterday and felt that it was more than adequate for the car. It could jump to 100 mph in no time with a handy downshift but still cruise comfortably all day if fifth while getting over 30mpg. As far as the something special, there are no 4 door entry lux cars in the $27K to $29k MSRP range that deliver what the TSX does. It has more amenities, power, and prestige than any other car in this price range. You want well under 7 second 0-60 you gonna spend more money or lose some features.

mazda6s

I agree with your analysis except for one thing - Mazda doesn't have the luxury image or loyal customer base following that Acura does. The TSX will sell because it's an Acura, even though it falls well short of the 3-series performance target. Current Acura owners are buying the TSX without even having driven one!
Mazda will never be able to convince anyone they are a luxury brand. This is one reason the Millenia failed. If you remember (way back), the Millenia was going to be sold in Mazda's luxury brand (Amati or Amanti, wasn't it?), but the execs at Ford/Mazda came to their senses and cancelled that idea.

creakid1

"the Millenia was going to be sold in Mazda's luxury brand (Amati..."

The Millenia was obviously not quiet enough(mainly road noise) even for a near-luxury car. Even the IS300, which wasn't planned as an U.S. Lexus in the beginning, was too noisy for a Lexus, per C&D, July 2000.

Today, the "Millenia replacement" - Mazda6 V6 - is still a notch noisier than TSX/Accord/Camry/Passat/A4/3-series.

mazda6s

Actually, you just helped reinforced my point. If the the IS300 had been sold as a Mazda it may have tanked like the Millenia. But, it's a Lexus.

I have driven all the cars you mentioned, and I don't think the noise difference is that significant. The TSX as actually noisier than I expected.

gearhead10

Actually, I believe Acura has studied its competition closely and while it states that the TSX is aiming to compete with the 3-series, it is actually a very close comparison with the Audi A4 frontrack and the Saab 9-3. They can be similarly equipped for prices that are close if you consider what dealers are actually selling for. The TSX has more power than the others but does not have as much of an edge in acceleration as the hp numbers suggest.

Whether these cars have that "extra something" is debatable and you may have a point there--if I remember correctly around 80% of all A4's sold in this country are quattros.

I believe in the end it comes down to marketing--there aren't any other choices in the extry-lux market for under $30K than these vehicles--the TSX isn't alone here. A lot of people will end up buying the TSX because they don't want to spend more and, as mazda6s says, just because it's an Acura.

gearhead10

Honda/Acura makes great, well-engineered and built cars and I still have a 12 year old Integra with well over 100K miles that was one of the best buying decisions I ever made. But the real strength of the company is its brand loyalty and marketing department.

hydra2

The tsx is very competitive as is. Especially at its price level against its major rivals with upscale brands, sans mazda. Its price and reliability are good balances to the fact that it may lose out to more expensive rivals with more dubious long term reliability. Imagine what would happen to the sales of some of these brands if buyers are forced by economic forces to buy and keep their vehicles long term, rather than lease them.

Imagine what will happen to tsx sales if the next model year adds a little power without upping the price. What will the critics say then.

The 6i at needs more power and more refinement. It is a good car, but tweaking it will make it a better car and probably improve sales, especially if it can copy honda/acura in boosting both power and mpg. Isn't competition grand.

The 6 supporters should stop whining about the unfair advantages of the honda/acura brand. The respect and loyalty was earned over time and any smart business should capitalize on its brand. Mazda has to earn respect for its brand over time by offering better and better cars probably for less. Build it better and cheaper and they will come. No one complains when the german makes exploit their brands, but when their prices get too dear, more hondas and toyotas are sold to mainstream buyers looking for maximum bang for the buck.

stretchsje

If the TSX is supposed to compete with the A4, 325, and 9-3, then what does the Euro Accord compete with? Same cars? Food for thought.

hunter001

About "agreeing with heymista", do you honestly agree with him that to get good acceleration, you "will have to hit the accelerator hard" in the TL-s, while in the TSX you would not have to ?? Aw, c'mon !! Now this is getting to the ridiculous stage.

The TL-s has enough torque right from idle to rocket off the line and has enough torque on tap anywhere on the power band to accelerate strongly from all speeds. It is a powerful 3.2L V6, for heaven's sake !

Now what will people come online and say ? That their Honda Civic accelerates better than the TL-s with a lot of responsiveness, while the TL-s has "better overall acceleration" due to its more powerful V6 ??

About not needing V6s to get adequate acceleration, I completely agree. Nowadays, 4-cylinders are plenty powerful. I drive Nissan Altimas etc during business trips and even the 4-cylinder versions (2.5L with 180hp/180Torque ?) felt plenty powerful. The new Honda Accord 4-cylinder is very peppy too. You really don't need a V6 to get adequate acceleration. But to make statements that 4-cylinders appear more responsive in relation to a larger V6, just makes me feel that, the V6 in question, may need a visit to the dealership to check for any faults....if it appears less responsive than a 4-cylinder !

Later...AH

heymista

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. You have quoted me as saying in my first post that the TSX "seemed to accelerate better" than the TLS. Go find where I said that please because I sure don't see it. In my second post I said to get "maximum HP" I would need to hit the accelerator hard. Either something is wrong with your reading comprehension or you like to bend what people say. After driving a undependable and inefficient TLS for 2 years, I'm looking for something nimble with better efficiency. For some reason you apparently have a problem with this. BTW, have you actually driven a TXS or are you just imagining what a 4 cyl is compared to your big and powerful TL?

himiler

As a Prelude owner, I'm used to keeping the revs above 4K to get real power from the engine, so I know where your comments are coming from. My biggest problem with the TSX engine is that I needed to keep the gas pedal planted nearly all the time just to keep the car out of its own way. The constant shifting gave the feeling of having to work hard to make any progress, and I love manual trannys.

hydra2 -- I think the TSX's extra weight conspires to dull the engine's responses and the suspension, too. Additional horsepower is not the solution. The car is both overly tall and narrow for its weight, and needs either a wider track or a diet...possibly both.

robertsmx

Stretchsje
The difference with the TSX is NOT that it has a bad powertrain design, but because drivers are accustomed to keeping the engine at certain RPMs...
Bottom line: ignore the tach, and it'll feel fine.

Well put.

bszeto
I really feel that the TSX, although very nicely finished and quite competent in a number of areas, doesn't quite make the grade for the class it competes in.

That is debatable. Honda has traditionally put cars that have been successful by not being exceptional in anything, but good in everything. TSX appears to follow the trend. And then, this low volume sporty car borders two of Honda's own excellent offerings, power, features and size in the form of Accord EXV6 at the expense of handling (Accord is still a touring sedan) and TL (and this too is a touring sedan, unless you opt for Type-S which has an MSRP of $32K).

Quickness is not the strength of TSX, the overall package is. Anything looking for 'fast sedan' under $30K should drop cars like TSX, 325, Audi A4, Saab 9-3 etc. from the list, and be serious about Altima 3.5SE, Accord EXV6, Maxima or Infiniti G35.

hunter001
Now what will people come online and say ? That their Honda Civic accelerates better than the TL-s with a lot of responsiveness, while the TL-s has "better overall acceleration" due to its more powerful V6 ??

Responsiveness could mean how quickly the engine responds to the driver input, not necessarily just being the faster car. For example: a high-pressure single turbo 2.0 liter four banger engine performs like an average 2.0 liter engine at low revs, and as the turbo spools up, it transforms into a 3.0-3.5 liter V6 like engine. While the overall acceleration may be impressive, the lag contributes against responsiveness.

Some cars can rev more freely than others, and that will contribute towards responsiveness as well. And it could be Honda Civic as well, especially if it is a Type-R!

himiler
The car is both overly tall and narrow for its weight, and needs either a wider track or a diet...possibly both.

I disagree. You should take into account, the wheel base AND the track to determine if a car is narrow. Shorter wheelbase does not need a wider track. Acura TSX is about as wide as most midsize sedans (if not as much as Accord), but it sits on among the shortest wheelbase around (105.2 inch). That gives it squarer foot print than most cars, a typical Honda practice in recent years.

robr2

The Euro Accord and the TSX, albeit very much related, compete in different classes because the North American Accord already exists in the market as a competitor for the M6. Does it make sense to have a second vehicle in the same market segment like Ford does with the M6 and Mondeo in Europe? Why does Daimler sells MB trucks in the US under the Freightliner brand but not under the MB brand? Because the MB star is synonomous with expensive cars and people feel different about plumbers who drive MBs vs Freighliners. It's all marketing.

The M6 is a great vehicle. Does it compete directly with the TSX? IMHO - not in North America. I've only sat in the M6 and TSX. I was disappointed in the Mazda's interior finishes. I've been disappointed in the TSX's reported perfomance numbers. I was suprised at the value that M6 offers. I was equally suprised at the value the TSX offers.

Many Mazda owners may cross shop the TSX as a possible stretch. But I think very few Acura shoppers would step down to the Mazda.

As for your last questions: Honda UK compares the Accord to the A4, 9-3, and S60 in it's company car comparison.

http://www.honda.co.uk/companycar/comparisons/ACCORD.pdf

himiler

As a point of comparision, the TSX has a narrower track and longer wheelbase than my Prelude (granted, not a mid-sized sedan), yet is slightly wider and much taller overall (while offering slightly less headroom!).

robertsmx

I will compare it to two of its closest cousins (wheelbase/track width),
Accord Sedan: 107.9 / 61.2 = 1.76
TL: 108.1 / 61.1 = 1.77
TSX: 105.1 / 59.6 = 1.76

So, while TSX has narrower track, its shorter wheelbase helps in achieving the same ratio as Accord. Sedan to coupe comparisons in those regards can be misleading as sedans get practical considerations especially in terms of headroom, shoulder room, leg room and hip room for front as well as rear seat passengers.

I consider VW Passat to be a close competitor to TSX as well (especially since they are closely matched in terms of size)
Passat: 106.4 / 59.6 = 1.79 (and Passat is taller than TSX)

Also,
BMW 3-series: 107.3/58.4 = 1.84 (rear track used which is about 0.5 inch wider than front)

Looking at these numbers, TSX has nearly as square or squarer foot print. BTW, what was the track for Prelude? I know the wheelbase was 101.8.

himiler

Prelude's front track: 60.0"
Prelude's rear track: 59.6"
Turning circle Base/SH: 36.1'/37.4'
height: 51.8" (TSX is 57.3" tall)
overall width (with mirrors): 69"

Footprint (101.8"/60.0"): 1.69

hunter001

Here are the quotes from your posts that I replied to earlier:

TSX seemed to accelerate with less effort than the TLS

I disagree strongly here. It is insulting my intelligence to accept such suggestions.

I feel like the TSX is very responsive at lower RPMs by comparison.

Telling that the TSX is very responsive at lower RPMs than the TL-s, is also silly and pure rubbish. If in fact this is true, then as I suggested earlier, you need to get your TL-s checked out without delay. There is something seriously wrong with it.

I normally don't spent too much time responding to such posts and as far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue.

Later...AH

crocan

Although I haven't posted anything on this discussion everyone's comments and opinions have been "interesting" to say the least. I have been shopping now for over 6 month's and finally bought a TSX today (delivery at the end of this month). I started out looking at G35's (great power handling but a little too thirsty and pricey, although still a great car). Then fell for the 9-3 (beautiful car, good handling, too bad the interior feels a little cheap). Then just recently after visiting a local Acura dealer I sat in the TSX and loved it.
    Although I would love to have more power I quickly realized that for the money you cannot find a car with more features as standard equipment. The interior is a work of art, the sound system doesn't need upgrading as it is plenty powerful, there is enough room for 4, 5 for a short trip, and the mileage is excellent for it's class. The handling is awesome for a front driver, the brakes are powerful and the sound of the engine at high RPM's is music to the ear.
   The service seems to be top notch and reliability should be above average.
   I will write again after getting the car to let you guys know what it's like after a few days behind the wheel as opposed to an hour.