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
This is how one dictionary defines the word effort- "The use of physical or mental energy to do something."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=effort
"Responsive" is describing how the car reacts. Again this is not just in relation to speed. I happen to feel that the drive by wire throttle system is very responsive as does everyone that has test driven the vehicle. How long does it take acceleration to begin when the gas peddle is depressed? -NOT how fast does it accelerate? This is why I don't understand your comments- nor will I try to. I never said the TSX is faster and accelerates quicker than my TLS, but for some odd reason you seem fixated on the idea that someone said this.
My TLS has been in the shop plenty, and I hope you have more luck with yours. Thanks for not misquoting this time - no apology necessary.
Manual transmission:
G35: 11.8(city)/8(highway) l/100km
TSX: 10.7(city)/8.1(highway) l/100km
I think it's pretty obvious that the UK Accord competes with the UK versions of the same cars. But I think it needs to be understood that the UK BMWs, Audis, and Saabs are not the same as what we see here.
That's the pathetic thing about having weak low end. You lose both low-end thrust & fuel economy, plus engine noise(except TSX's quiet 4-cyl). About the only advantage is the less likelihood to provoke torque steer in a fwd car.
Check out the April C&D. The much-lighter & way-superior-handling(w/ very little sacrifice in ride comfort), in both communication & limit, RX-8's got S2000-like weak low end. & it trailed behind the G35 in every acceleration & fuel economy category(both EPA & C&D) by a significant margin. You can blame Mazda's engines for not being very efficient, but I'm sure the lack of low end is the main culprit.
Engines that don't make any more power than necessary at the low rpms are generally more efficient. Generally speaking, an engine that expends less energy uses less fuel. Its only when you gear them for performance or drive with a lead foot that they start sucking gas.
In this case, the TSX is tuned/geared to maximize power across the entire range. That, coupled with the weight of a near lux car, conspires to lower the overall fuel economy.
That's the pathetic thing about having weak low end.
Ideally, a 2.0 liter engine with 140 lb.-ft at 3000 rpm (maintained) should burn as much gasoline as a 3.0 liter engine with 210 lb.-ft at 2000 rpm (maintained) for the given speed. Techically, the 2.0 would be geared 1.5 times shorter to do so. The problem is, we always look at engine's output (especially torque) and forget the gearing.
Mazda6s has torquier engine, I don't think it gets better mileage than TSX.
That said, the same engine delivers better mileage with automatic. Why should that happen? That said, European Accord w/190 HP is actually rated better with manual than it is with automatic. Could it be the method that EPA adopts to estimate mileage compared to its counterpart in Europe? Or, could it be gearing?
You call 250 hp from 1.3 litres inefficient?
I remember when VW stroked their 1.6 to 1.7 for '81, they explained that they made the engine biased for low end w/ gobs more torque & even achieved slightly less peak hp so the maximum acceleration is no worse overall while getting better fuel economy during normal driving. Because, during normal driving w/ similar output, a weak-torque engine needs to rev more & thus wasting more energy/friction-loss at the TOTAL distance of piston travel.
"Engines that don't make any more power than necessary at the low rpms are generally more efficient. Generally speaking, an engine that expends less energy uses less fuel."
Sure, that stroked VW 1.7 will use more fuel than the 1.6 per rpm, due to more displacement & longer stroke(piston/cylinder-wall friction loss), but the 1.7 can be up-shifted MUCH earlier during normal driving w/o acclerating less than the 1.6. & that will more than compensate, & therefore, get better mpg. Only "clumsy" drivers who rev more than necessary running the engine at high vacumn will not take the advantage of low-end engines' higher economy/efficiency.
I believe BMW's 325e 2.7 Eta engine(vs 325i 2.5) from the late '80's is an even better example, although the taller gearing may have made it even more frugal.
The U.S. EPA does stubbornly upshifts at higher-than-neccessry rpm, so the close-ratio TSX 6-sp's rating is lower than it should be. If I remember correctly, back in '81, VW even took advantage of this EPA's "bad habit" by also offering a wide-ratio 4-sp manual called "3+E" & achieved an even-higher EPA mpg rating than their own "4+E" 5-sp. Today's Saab 9-3 manual probably is just as wide, too.
It's a rotary. If the fuel economy is anywhere close to an 1.3 4-stroke engine...
Besides, I didn't say it's inefficient for an engine that's high-end bias. At least I haven't conclude that way, although, generally, Honda has been churning out more-efficient engines than Mazda's.
Accord V6/6-speed will maintain cruising revs (60 mph) at about 2000 rpm. It is rated at about 29-30 mpg.
TSX engine gives up about 27% in displacement, meaning, if it maintains about 27% higher revs, the mileage should be about the same as Accord V6. And both is true. It could also mean that they should have about the same horsepower at the wheels.
Power comes at the expense of fuel where it is derived from, be it large displacement or smaller. When you want to extract power, you must supply fuel.
But ya know, all the time I was driving the TSX I was thinking it would be a great car if it had a small V6 engine, maybe about 2.7L to 2.8L.
Euro Accord has final gear ratio 4.388 vs. TSX's 4.76. The first gear is also different: Accord's 3.533 vs. TSX's 3.267.
Comparing old designs to newer (more advanced) designs isn't going to work either. The new 2.4L Accord is more fuel efficient than the old 2.3L version despite being "similar" in most other respects. Same goes for the new CR-V vs the old. This is due to the use of new technologies and advancements, not displacement.
Creakid - Most cars simply do not need the power that modern cars generate to operate in normal traffic. The extra power from the 1.7L (over the 1.6L) in your example is superfluous. It is effectively energy that is wasted until the driver decides they need something more than "normal" accleration.
The driver of the 1.7 may feel that the car is moving with less effort, but that is simply because they do not have to step on the pedal quite so hard. The driver's effort is reduced, but the engine is required to move bigger pistons. It need energy (fuel) to do that.
As for shiftpoints, many drivers will do it by sound rather than actual acceleration. They "hear" when to shift. This has caused some drivers of the 5 speed CR-V (a high revver at highway speeds) to reach for an imaginary 6th gear. Driving my CR-V has tuned my ears to the sound of revving to 3,500 rpms before shifting. My wife's TL does not require this kind of shifting, but I frequently force it to go that high without thinking. There's no need for me to be speeding away, yet there I am doing 80 mph on the highway when I normally drive about 70.
Yes, I know it is all a matter of personal choice, but I'd love to hear what others think.
Equipped with the auto, there isn't much grunt unless you're willing to let the engine really spin. And frankly, if you're using the manumatic feature to keep the revs up, why not just get the 6-speed?
This is why 30% manual was planned. They're not producing that many sticks, just so few autos - 15k/yr total. Honda knows that auto models are not so desirable, power wise.
But many people would buy the TSX just because it's an Acura 4-dr. Sales of the auto versions are higher than expected.
(uncledavid)
"Which transmission would you choose in this situation, and why?"
I read somewhere that the right manual for stop & go traffic, a good-low-end engine & tall 1st gear is more convenient. The TSX works too, since its weak-low-end engine come w/ an "extra low-range" 1st gear, & the engine revs quietly w/ a high red line.
That's not the problem. The problem is that 90% of peak torque at 2000rpm isn't enough for this heavy of a car.
I'd get the manual. The clutch has some assist to it so that it's feather-light. The throttle response is even altered to make lower revs feel unlinearly stronger. It shouldn't be a chore in traffic, at all. Plus, the mileage benefits of a manual are greatest in city traffic.
IMO, the pleasure of winding out the engine when you get the chance will far outweigh any inconvenience in traffic. The engine is very smooth and not at all noisy for an I4, one just has to get used to revving it higher. Plus, if you can find an MT on a dealer's lot you may be able to get a small discount--I got offered a discount without asking on one that was on the lot for 2 weeks as all the AT's were flying off the lot.
My statement would be just the opposite. I have owned very few automatics in my large span and number of car buying. I would get the manual 6-speed. You have more fun and feel of the car.
I currently live in Houston and while the stop and go is not quite as bad as LA I still enjoy driving a manual transmission in the rush hour traffic.
MidCow
Re-read the post.
Regardless of your traffic situation, I wouldn't consider the TSX without the manual, period.
Later...AH
-vtec369
That covers a variety of buyers. Some, looking for more sport, some looking for an Accord with distinction (lifestyle), some looking for an Acura in the price class and the rest looking for a blend of the attributes.
People looking for more sport than anything else will want the 6-speed manual transmission, the rest may not. The manual transmission version represents a car with involved driving, some may not enjoy at all times. People looking for the blend may be fine with automatic transmission, as it bodes well with their needs, and wants: a good car with good mileage and relaxed cruising. Clearly, the orientation of the car with auto versus manual transmission is slightly different, so it boils down to what you want.
As for needs, you have seen people downplaying TSX on account to lack of torque because they see and value two numbers: engine torque and curb weight. Let us dig into this a little further.
As you mentioned, TSX gets 90% of its peak torque at 2000 rpm (equates to about 150 lb.-ft). By comparison, my 98 Accord makes 152 lb.-ft at peak (4700 rpm), and probably around 135 lb.-ft at 2000 rpm. Now, an argument would be that Accord is 140 lb. lighter, but people find it easy to ignore gearing and the effects of it.
To make the story short, let us make two of the three variables equal (curb weight and gearing of 98 Accord) between the two cars. Using simple math, TSX would have the effectiveness at 2000 rpm, that Accord would have with 160 lb.-ft instead of 136 lb.-ft.
IMO, that kind of production is enough to meet the needs, if not the wants, of most buyers. I suggest you to take a test drive, remember to switch off the VSA, and see for yourself if the front-end wheels squeal or not, even with the low torque that has become the big story.
As a side note, I had a dealer supplied loaner car for a day while my Accord was in service couple of days ago. The car I got was Dodge Intrepid (probably with the 2.7 liter, 200 HP, 190-200 lb.-ft V6). Talk about disappointment. While numbers suggest that the car will be quick with less-throttle compared to my Accord, it was the other way around. The car wouldn't get going unless I depressed the gas pedal all the way down. OTOH, my Accord would squeal its tires while the suspension shows its ability to counter torque steer and the engine appears to start revving at 3000 rpm instead of about 1000 rpm that it does. It is not surprise that a review mentioned K24A in TSX as being better than many six-cylinder engines around.
Still, the best way to figure it out is, to experience it.
Right now, I'm driving an Accord Ex 96. It has an Automatic 4-speed with the SOHC 2.2 4 cyl. Most of the time, I find that the power is fine. It gets good acceleration on the highway, and is great around town. But, when the A/C is on, acceleration onto the highway is a pain, and the preformance on steep upgrades has always been poor. Otherwise, I feel like it is quite peppy, and think it handles and rides great. Also, very comfortable.
I'm guessing that the 4-cyl in the TSX will be more than enough for me. And, I disagree with those who think the power is insufficient. The new Accord 4-cyl sedan goes zero-to-60 in something like 8.6 seconds (by a few different estimates). If the TSX is even a bit faster than that, the performance will be fine with both the automatic and manual. Sure, it won't match most V6 engines, but will be fine for my needs. With the sportshift in the TSX, I could always switch to manual for those times that I do need better performance.
Still, the issue with the manual vs. automatic is complicated for me. I lived in Europe for a while and always drove manuals. Had no problem with them, even in traffic. However, I've been back in the states for 6 years, and have driven nothing but automatic since then. I'm no longer used to a manual, and it is a bit more work for me.
So, I test drove the TSX with both transmissions and I did find the manual to be more responsive. But, I had a hard time with it, because it has been six years since I used a manual. It is difficult to figure out which car I would like more, because the manual would become much easier to use over time.
The choice is made harder because the automatic is essentially free. If I was saying $1000, like I would with a BMW or Audi, I might be even more tempted by the manual.
That said, Honda has been placing the engine just ahead of the front wheels, so when the car accelerates, more weight gets transferred onto the wheels instead of behind it.
The TSX engine makes good power, sure. But you gotta get the RPMs up there to get it. And, I noticed in my test drive that the TSX suffers from the same "buzziness" that all 4-cyl engines demonstrate at high RPMs.
I do think the 4-cyl in both the Accords and TSX get kind of "buzzy" at high RPMs. I just don't agree that low-end torque is lacking in those vehicles. Also, the acceleration on the Honda 4-cyl AT is at least "adequate" and maybe better than that.
Why is everybody coming down so hard on the TSX anyway? The Audi A4 1.8 and BMW 325i don't offer tha much more in terms of power or acceleration.
We are always looking for that "magic bullet", the truly great car at an affordable price.
We're just unreasonable, we want more for less ...
As responsive and refined as the TSX's engine is, it's just being asked to haul too much car around.
Content-wise the TSX is a slam dunk (overkill for my needs). It's just not as rewarding to drive as I'd prefer.
I'm with you on that, 100%.
Pop Quiz:
How many people have said they were smiling and laughing the whole time they were driving the TSX?
Excuses abound if not-TSX.
The point with the TSX is that you get performance that is at least competitive with BMW 325i, Audi A4, and VW Passat and you also get Honda reliability. Factor that in with the price, and you've got a pretty solid value.
Is it as good a value as an Accord? Overall, probably not. But, then an Audi A4 is not as good a vaule as a Passat, and nobody seems to complain about that.
How many people have said they were smiling and laughing the whole time they were driving the TSX?"
Ha ha, ha ha, ha ha, ...
The TSX 6-spd made 171hp and 153lbft torque to the wheels, bone stock with 1700 miles on the engine. Torque had quite a peak between 2500-5000rpm, yet dropped off earlier than you might expect. This translates closer to 175ft-lbs of torque and 195hp- quite impressive!
This dyno completely contradicts everyone's driving impressions, which goes to show (once again): the engine is not the problem. It's weight.
The BMW 325i with only 184hp and 175lbs-ft of torque can do 0-60mph in 7 seconds flat. Can the TSX beat this time? I don't think so. See MotorWeek's review.