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
A manufacturer purchasing the components wouldn't pay more than $200 or so for those parts. LCD screen is maybe $50-70. DVD drive is around $10-15. Input controls maybe $5-10. Software/processor is really the only expensive stuff and that's maybe gonna run you $100 (if you didn't do your own programming).
$200 worth of parts marked up to $2000 (true pretty much across the board for manufacturers)."
Then by the same logic instead of paying MSRP for a car I should only pay 1/10 the So I should be able to get a TSX for less than $3,000 if I buy all the parts myself ?
Congratulations, you've just saved $1,945.
The Acura NAV is kewl.
from #2565 "Not to mention even the top aftermarket NAV systems go for $1500 and up. So maybe it's a rip-off to you but had I been able to find a 2003 Accord EX-L 5-speed with NAV I would've gladly paid the extra $2000. "
The Acura set-up might be all that, but it's still too much $$ to spend for those lousy menu-access stereo controls. Its poor interface design and "come get rooked" price make me glad it's an option.
over on the dash to adjust the A/C."
You're talking about the A4 & the rest of the idiotic VW family.
DVDs have been out for a long long time and even the current technology, THX ultra progressive scan and the ability to play multiple formats: e.g. CD-RW, CD-R, Video CD, Audio CD, SACD, MP3, JpeG photo, HPCDS, etc.
I just upgraded my DVDs to Pioneer Elite and Denon for the Media room and Den. I am a car nut and a technology geek and also an early innovator.
Back to discussion at hand the new line of NAV that Honda and Acura are using is one of the best, if not the best, currently integrated available. However, the Garmin Street Pilot Deluxe is also a very good after market, which I currently have. With the beanbag mount, you can use it anywhere on ANY CAR. This is especially nice if you are flying to a new city and you are not familiar with where everything is. Granted, only major cities are mapped in detail, but that is true of all GPSs. The good thing about Garmin is that software and firmware (the actual GPS software on the unit) are frequently upgraded.
The fact is that Acura system is no more expensive than the competition, and it is among the best anyway. With TSX, you could use voice controls to operate the stereo anyway.
Apples to oranges. I included software costs in my $200 assessment. In fact I gave the lion's share of the cost to software. Software for a computer has R&D behind it and manpower to create it. Software installed on a nav system is paid for by the manufacturers when they buy the package from the developer.
And this price level allows a profit to be made given all the costs of production, engineering, marketing, and data licensing distrbuted over the number of units they sell.
Dude, that's a load. The marketing, distribution costs are all part of every car Acura makes. The Nav system broken down:
LCD - $40-60 (60 is high for a tiny LCD screen like that in bulk).
DVD-drive - $10-15 (again this is probably high)
Cabling - $5
CPU, MB, Memory - $25-25
Software - $70 (highend considering voice recognition is no big deal)
GPS/Antenna - $25
Is there another part so cheap on a car that nabs so much instant profit?
(Or at least we presume they make a profit - it is also possible that they are taking losses
Good grief man, a Nav system is using 1996-97 technology! The components, the software, the assembly are all basic.
And the price isn't going to come down when we "demand" it.
You demand it by ignoring it. The de facto price on navi is 2k. That was established in the 90s. In the mid 00's the price still stands at 2k even though the technology is ridiculously simple and cheap now.
It will come down when the costs come down
As has been proven by the current price point and its stagnation for 5-10 years the manufacturers see no reason to drop the price.
In reality, it will come down when someone else sells a competing system more cheaply.
And that won't happen as long as buyers are willing to fork over 2k for a system. That's the standard. In 2003 people who want navi accept that it'll cost them $2000. That's what it has always cost and that's what it will continue to cost. If users stopped ordering it then manufacturers would begin to offer more attactive packaging to move the item.
The cost of a car system is in the development, no doubt. The technology is there to make them inexpensive, but the demand isn't yet. Prices will continue to fall, don't worry.
In the meantime, I still think $2,000 sounds high.
My question to all of you who have had TSX's for a while is: How do you find the quality of the drive? How does it compare to a FWD Saab or Audi A4 or low end BMW or M-B? Do you think the dealer's excuse has credence or is it malarcky?
Do you think it's unfair for me to compare TSX against my 280?
Your consensus seems to be that we get a lot of features/creature comforts with the TSX for the money--but what is your opinion of the regular drive. I'm not interested in racing. Just regular city and highway driving to work, supermarket, etc. And I go on a lot of long highway drives. I'm anxious for the opinions of those of you who have driven the TSX for a while in daily use --not just those who only test drove it. Thank you.
Magellan's top navigation system retails for $1800-$2000 according to CR. The top price of the model they tested was $1000. They also mention that the best built-in systems are easier to use. So if you do want navigation you decide whether it's worth $1000 to you to have an integrated system which is fully covered by Acura's factory warranty for 4 years.
Don't get me wrong - I love the car and think it is a great package overall. For me, the relatively low ride quality is a price I am willing to pay for the handling. But, the TSX is not for you if you are looking for a smooth ride. If that is what you want, and you also need Acura reliability, wait until the new TL comes out in the fall.
That said, I live in a very large city that is well mapped. I would say that, at least once a week, I have to travel to a new address. For me, it comes in very handy. But, YMMV. If you have lived in the same town for a long time, know the streets extremely well, and never travel outside those boundaries, it probably doesn't make sense.
I tried handheld NAV systems before (like the ones mentioned above for under $1000). They don't compare well to the system in the Acura. Its like night and day, actually.
I have used Magellan in Hertz cars with their "NeverLost" system, but I prefer the user interface of Garmin better.
WOW I just check the Magellan 750M retails for $1999 Here is a link about the specs: http://www.getagps.com/mag75gpsvehn.html
I agree the Honda/Acura new NAV system is the best and if you like in a large city that has the detailed street maps and you need to use it at all it is worth it.
I only wish Honda had OEMed Garmin instead of Magellan
Today you get a voice-activated system with a single DVD disk for the same price that was required to get a multi-disk CD system without any sort of voice-recognition and a much smaller screen.
The VW Passat is also an excellent car, but it won't be nearly as reliable as the Acura or Honda. I would argue that, from a ride and handling perspective, the Passat is superior to anything built by Honda/Acura.
You could get a good deal on a Saab 900 right now, because there are rebates in the $4,000 range.
The Mazda is a very nice car but you are right about the interior. Any Nissan or Infiniti will suffer from the same problem. These are all very nice cars with cheapish interiors. The Maxima is a nice option, but also has a lousy interior, as does the Infiniti G35.
Lexus IS300 is another option, although it does not ride any better than the TSX (neither does the Audi A4, btw).
For me, it came down to the TSX, Accord, or waiting until the fall for the new TL to come out. But, all of the cars I listed would be good options.
Some more nice options should be available in the next year.
Anybody else have suggestions?
For a crowded city, TSX's length/visibility/turning circle suck!
If you can wait for months, new superb comfy compact sport sedans are coming - Mazda3/Volvo S40/BMW 1-series(4-dr sedan's being built in S. Carolina). Their communicative steering & ride comfort alone are 2nd to none. & they should all be available w/ leather/Xenon/ESP. Between $20-30k I guess.
The magic behind the FWD Mazda3/Volvo S40 is the adoption of Focus II steering/suspension.
According to AUTOCAR of England, the 4-&-year-old-design Focus is ahead of the 3-series Compact & C-class Coupe in dynamic. No wonder BMW almost bought this design back then.
Some recent summaries I read about the Focus dynamic:
creakid1 "Mazda3" Jun 21, 2003 6:06am
creakid1 "Mazda3" Jun 21, 2003 3:42pm
creakid1 "New S40/V50 WHEN?" Jun 4, 2003 2:12am
http://autoweek.com/specials/2003_geneva/mazda/index.htm
Scroll down to see the dash:
http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=2df3632a7125ad2008ad795f- - - - 73edd53e&threadid=2996&pagenumber=2
Possible exterior:
http://bilder.autobild.de/bilder/1/28891.jpg
http://bilder.autobild.de/bilder/1/28890.jpg
While not a sports car the Accord has front/rear double wishbones so it has a firm highway ride and with better tires wouldn't complain about taking on twisties either. If the sedan is too big and you don't need 4 doors then take a look at the coupe.
After I drove the TSX, I knew I would not like driving it everyday. It's cramped, way too bumpy for everyday driving or long trips, and overpriced. It just made me realize what a bargain the Accord is. You get a stronger engine, more space, a power passenger seat, and save $2000 plus you pay less for gas and insurance. The Accord is the perfect balance. The ride is firm enough to make it sporty when you want, but not so firm that it's uncomfortable for everyday driving. And while the TSX interior is great, the Accord interior isn't that far behind. It's much better than the current TL. That's why I got an Accord instead. It's unbelievable how much you're getting for less than 25K. The TSX just isn't worth the money Acura is asking.
It's all relative. For 25k the TSX is a screaming bargain IMHO. The Accord EX 3.0 for 20k is still overpriced IMO because it doesn't do what a car should do - perform.
For someone who likes to push a car yet have luxury, the TSX is a great, cheap compromise. For someone who values a supple ride over handling then the Accord seems like the perfect choice. For someone who only wants a Buick-like ride and no semblance of handling the Camry is the ultimate.
I don't consider the TSX a bargain. For 25K, I expect 6 cylinders. All the other features they include can't make up for that. If anything, it seems like an apology from Acura. "Sorry we couldn't give you a V6, but we'll give dual-zone climate control."
I definitely disagree that the Accord EX3.0 is overpriced. This car is not meant to perform. It's meant to be an affordable luxury cruiser with a hint of sport and it succeeds. People who are expecting it to perform are looking at the wrong car.
Also, as far as the ride is concerned - it is definitely stiff in the TSX but not nearly as bad as some are suggesting here. I find it absorbs bumps OK, but their is too much body motion when the road gets wavey. Also, it does only have a 4-cyl engine, but it is a 200 HP 4-cyl with a very falt torque band. It is quite quick around town.
IMO, however, the TSX is not nearly as good a deal as the Accord though, but nothing out there really is (besides maybe the Passat). The only issue with the Accord is that it has a very unattractive exterior and everybody and his brother will have one. But, if those issues don't bother you, it is a fine choice. I came very close to buying an Accord myself.
If you can indeed buy TSX for 25K (although this is not true at this point, more like 26.5K), I think it's a great buy. You seem to be confused about the definitions of sport and luxury.
The coupe's rear seat sucks, while the sedan's is heaven. Both got fat & lengthy exterior.
I'm sure the Accord can handle, just w/ a larger exterior. Minor mods like bigger sway bars alone can do the trick, as the std set up is already tighter than the '98-02 Accord.
Compare to the C280, the TSX is still significantly longer.
Visibility wise, compare to the Mazda6, you'll see why. Besides TSX's high dash & side windows, it's the rear-glass size you see from the driver seat. Backing up can run over kids easier. But what bothers me the most is the lack of width I see from the inside rear-view mirror for swift lane change.
Those older Honda sedan's w/ wrap-around rear glass are excellent. The present 3-series sedan is already a little too restricted, rear-view wise.
I would say either car is a great deal in its segment.
There it is and that's awesome. You found your goldilocks ('fits just right') car. That's what we all want!
The TSX fit me nicely but it needes a bit more power, tighter suspension and a more aggressive lines. I'd go absolutely buggy in an Accord!
You are welcome to your priorities. However, this criteria would also eliminate cars from Mercedes Benz, Saab, and Audi. All of them are charging more than $25K, too. (I have to wonder what you would do if rotary engines made their way into luxury cars?)
The notion that luxury requires power and a supple ride can be found in the offerings of Lincoln, Mercury, Cadillac, and several Lexus offerings. So there is a market for it.
Although I also dislike 4 cylinder (I prefer more torque at low rpm), it can actually help make a car more sport (nimble handling). There is no way I buy a 4 cylinder automatic version of TSX. But with manual transmission, it is much less of an issue.
Anyway, I think the Accord EX (V6) leather should be great for you, especially they are being discounted heavily these days.
WoW! the EX 6-speed coupe runs 0-60 in 6.2 seconds. If that isn't perfomance then there are a lot of other cars that don't perfrom including: IS300, Mazda6, TSX, TL, CL, 325, Altima, etc.
I guess what you want is the new Neon SRT4 for $20K. I don't of any other car that performs at that price ( OKay Okay the 6-sp EX will really cost you 25K 2K under MSRP)
http://www.autoweb.com.au/start_/showall_/id_HON/doc_hnd0306061/c- ms/news/newsarticle.html
rofl. Straightline acceleration does not equate to performance.
If that isn't perfomance
It isn't
then there are a lot of other cars that don't perfrom including: IS300, Mazda6, TSX, TL, CL, 325, Altima, etc.
Let's break those down fast:
IS300 = slower to 60 than an Accord but far more nimble. i'll pick the IS300.
Mazda6 = slower to 60 and far, far more nimble than an Accord. I'll pick the 6.
TL/CL = about the same car with less nimble handling. no thanks on all counts.
TSX = slower to 60 and more fun to drive by a long shot. i'll take the TSX.
325i = slower to 60 and infinitely better handling than an Accord. Is there any question?
Altima = just as quick to 60, better handling, less luxurious. I'd avoid both of them.
I guess what you want is the new Neon SRT4 for $20K. I don't of any other car that performs at that price ( OKay Okay the 6-sp EX will really cost you 25K 2K under MSRP)
0-60 is not the end all and be all. If it were, I would have purchased a WRX and just added a couple grand of mods to get it to 60 in 5 seconds.
It's really sad that when someone says performance, others mention only 0-60 times. Reminds me of the kids with nitros on their Integras. wow, you can run a 12 second quarter mile. What happens when you need to actually drive the car, not just hit the gas pedal. any monkey can take an Accord to 60 in under 7 seconds. Lets see him really drive the car. And then do the same with a more nimble, less powerful car - 325i for example. Quite simply an Accord V6 is a dog when it comes to the twists. Understeer isn't just a slight problem in an Accord V6, it's a way of life. I'd much rather have a TSX in a roadholding situation.
Pardon me if I disagree. The Accord V6 handles much better than many people give it credit for in this day and age of the Mazda 6 "zoom zoom" mentality.
And that's not just my opinion... the Accord's handling has elicited reviews like this:
Road and Track:
"Under all road conditions, the chassis is stable and planted, with steering that feels sturdy and accurate..."
"Ride is well controlled without being harsh, and the car stays pleasantly flat in hard transitions. On a winding road, you can push the Accord quite hard with confidence, as you have good feedback through the steering and a good sense of remaining traction."
"Accords have always been fun to hustle down a twisty road, and the 2003 model is no exception."
Hmmm... doesn't sound like a "dog in the twists" to me.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_- - - - - - - - - - - - id=437&page_number=7&preview=
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=6&article_- - - - - - - - - - - - id=295&page_number=1
In that test, the Accord's handling and steering were rated second after the Mazda 6. And higher than the Altima and Passat.
Very much in synch with my personal impressions. I'm not trying to say that the Accord exhibits the handling prowess of a more overtly sporty car like a TSX or 6. But it's hardly the dog that you portray it to be, IMO and also in the opinion of R&T, C&D, Motor Trend, etc.
It's easy to find lots more, but there's no point to a quote fest. And yes, you can find some that disagree. But you can certainly find more press that praises the Accord's handling than disses it. In many peoples' eyes, the Accord strikes an excellent balance between ride and handling. It may not be your preference, but many people, myself included, would take exception with your assessment.
Now, these pictures introduce a new visual to me...of course these cars are not avail here in the US market, RIGHT? So then it mAkes it worst for me...since I have seen this better style (for my taste).
The Acord Euro, as far as I can see, looks really nice. Thanks for the article Varmit.
For those of us that are looking for a FAIR quality of drive (who do not time the 6.2-or whatever from 0-t0-60), with NICE interiors that include some luxury and confort combined with space (the 4 dr.) or a bit more sport (the 2 dr) we must consider it.
Finally-A coment: (and this aplies to many) I respect all opinions and GREAT advice in this and other forums but again is a bit contradicting, if not hypocritical, when people talk and give SO much weight to things like speed acelaration and all that stuff and in reality when they drive they never really see, feel or live any of this.
I have 6 speed manual shift car and everyday, at some point, I punch my car and do take it to the 7,000rpm on several gears. If I can accelarate and feel the torque in a safe legal way I will-Because I love the way it feels. For example right after a toll, in a clean clear highway I push my car and acelarate it from 0-to-60 all the way. No need to speed since I take it down after reaching the limit.
I WILL MISS MY CARS ACELARATION AND FUN FEELING IF I GET A SLUG...AND THAT DOES WORRY ME A BIT...BUT WILL NOT LOOSE SLEEP OVER IT. I may just compromise on my next car because there will be others...i hope!
Please, stop! My stomach hurts from laughing so much!
The TSX and WRX have little more in common than their country of origin, door count, and an "X" in their names.
I said that they are along the same lines, not the same and I am sure many people are going to drive both of these cars if they are shopping for a sub-30k sports sedan. Honestly, I haven't decided for myself which group I fall into, the WRX's pure performance camp or the sport-lux TSX.
performance:
[1] The general way a vehicle, machine, or material is able to accomplish its purpose.
[2] The ability of a vehicle to accelerate and reach top speed.
handling:
The relative ability of a vehicle to negotiate curves and respond to road conditions. It is a factor of the weight of the vehicle, the suspension, tires, air flow, etc
Now 0-60 mph time, O-quarter mile time, 5-60 mph time and 0-top speed are measures of performance. The one characteristic they have in common is they acceleration or speed against time.
Handling which is what you were calling performance takes in to account the ability to change direction, the ability to handle varying road conditions, oversteer, understeer, drift, corrections reaction. A good metric to measure handling is slalom time. However, this is dependent on the driver and is not functionally correlated with performance: e.g. a Viper RTS has a High slalom time (bad) whereas a Focus ZX3 has a very Low slalom time (good).