By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I find TSX's styling, more refined and mature, with or without ground effects.
leather
bose
sport package
comfort package
the total (incl. destination charge, but excluding TTL) came to $24,845. And, this is with the car starting at MSRP (of ~ $21K).
How are you coming up with $28K?
I believe petpad's point still stands.
IMO, there is little subtle about the Asia/Euro Honda Accord (TSX): frankly it looks like it was styled with an axe! In contrast, the Mazda6 has a very low-key but sporty style that may be too understated for some. (And yes, the ground effects detract from this.)
I haven't seen the car in person, but I can see the subtle crease running the length of the car below the window sills, curving downward as it reaches the headlights.
The concave curve running from the base of the A-pillar to the the top of the headlight, where it becomes convex (same as in the NA Accord) to align with the rest of the hood.
There's also the pronounced wheel wells, and the other beltline running below the door handles.
There's the trademark crease running through the middle of the raised hood that continues the flow created by the pentagonal grille.
There's another crease, on top of the rocker panels, running from the front bumper to the rear bumper.
The lenses of the headlights are not the clear jewel types - they look tinted, but I wouldn't call them smoked.
I still prefer the looks of the 6, but I have to agree that the TSX, like the NA Accord, has some subtle lines (more than the NA Accord, IMO), which is why I think it looks chiseled.
Since when is TTL included in retail price? When you talk about how much a car stickers for, you don't include TTL.
No wait, it was $27K. I said something about it in the Protege discussion I think. You responded to it, Newcar, so you should remember.
The Honda "H" is stylized to represent a Japanese character in their alphabet. Unfortunately, I've forgotten which character it tries to resemble (I think it was "strength").
AWD systems do have an affect on fuel economy. It's one reason why the currrent CR-V gets the same mpg rating as the current Forester (despite the fact that the Forester is lighter, smaller, more aerodynamic, and geared lower). Full-time AWD also sucks power from the drivetrain. The difference is relatively minor, but they do exist.
Regardless, I do not expect the TSX to get any form of AWD. The high-performance IMA Tom is expecting is more likely to be the RL or NSX (with the DNX-inspired drivetrain).
If I recall correctly, the DNX also used an ultra capacitor rather than batteries.
Comparisons of drag co. are kind of a misleading debate. Drag is measured per inch. One vehicle may have a lower Drag Co., but if it has more inches, the total "amount" of drag could be greater.
As for papers comparisons with the Mazda6, I think it will be very interesting when the two actually meet in person. So far, I prefer the Mazda's styling, but Honda always seem to get greater performance with similar HP. Tough call.
My understanding is that drag co. is measured in units per square inch. When you compare the numbers, you are only comparing the average square inch of the vehicle. This only works if both vehicles have the same number of affected inches. We don't know if they do. One of them may suffer from greater drag forces because it is a larger vehicle.
I have a feeling it's going to be the Lexus and not the Acura.
In a vehicle, frontal area also plays a role in determining drag, but it is not always possible to reduce the frontal area (without making a vehicle, say, tight). Low coefficient of drag can also mean that the airflow is much smoother and will contribute towards less wind noise.
"Geared lower" should definitely worsen gas mileage not make it better. For example, in the lower gears (with numerically higher ratios), the mileage is worse, not better than the higher gears, where the gearing is higher (numerically lower). Being lighter, more aerodynamic etc., should improve the mileage however.
It works with acceleration performance, too. Though, in this case, the CR-V's gearing is an advantage.
http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?ID1=119&ID2=186
Robertsmx - Despite good air flow, I don't expect that the TSX will be particularly quiet. (Not that you made that claim.)
In general, Honda/Acura is pretty lousy at dampening sound, especially road noise. Sound insulation materials are heavy and expensive. Honda seems to use them sparingly to keep the vehicle light. Weight saving are probably more important in this application. So, while wind noise may be dampened effectively, I doubt the car will be all that quiet.
Lower Cd should help against wind noise.
Actually, in the Automatics, the CRV (with its normal 90/10 split of power) and the Forester (with its 90/10 split in power front/rear) has the following EPA mileages:
Forester (Automatic 90/10): 21 city/26 highway
Honda CRV (Automatic 90/10): 22 city/26 Highway.
Forester (Manual - Permanent 50/50 AWD): 21 city/27 Highway
Honda CRV (Manual - 90/10 power split): 21 city/25 Highway
So when it came to the Forester, the permanent 50/50 AWD has a better mileage than the Automatic with the 90/10 split and is definitely better than the mileage of the manual CRV with the 90/10 split. Did you refer to the previous generation CRV vs Forester, when comparing mileage ??
Later...AH
1. The CR-V has 100% FWD bias when there is no slippage. While the prop shaft is spinning all the time, there is no connection with the rear wheels until slippage. Once the axle speeds differ (slippage), a set of clutch packs engage the rear wheels. Until that time, the rear wheels are getting pulled forward. They get 0% of the engine's power.
Also (I'm nit-picking here) the Soob system used in the automatic is more like an 80/20 split at highway speeds. While in first and second gears, it is locked in 50/50 mode just like the manual (which might explain the relatively low city mpg).
2. The manual Forester is geared higher than the automatic. This is typical. The top gear in most 5 speeds is higher than the top gear in 4 speed automatics. The CR-V is atypical in that regard. The 5 speed tranny is actually lower than the 4 speed automatic! That, along with the other disadvantages, is enough to put the CR-V on the lower side where we would have expected it to be in the first place.
These are two very different vehicles, though. We'd be better served to use a FWD car and compare it with the AWD version of the same vehicle.
Also, the Automatic Forester is not operating at 80/20 in non-slip conditions...it is 90/10. There is even a fuse that when engaged, would disable AWD completely and enable it to become a 100% FWD vehicle. If in the first/second gear, it is at 50/50, it is all the more reason why it should have worser mileage than the CRV which is almost 100% FWD in non-slip conditions, going by the preceding arguments, right ?? Or am I missing something ?
So essentially what it comes down to is that gearing plays as much of a role in mileage as weight, AWD/FWD etc. A permanent AWD vehicle can have better/comparable mileage to a FWD vehicle, if the gearing allows it.
Later...AH
Hunter - I think you might want to read those posts a second time. You're arguing against points I never made.
Check with the Forester crew on the power distribution for the automatic. Soob changed it back in the late 90's. In the interest of being as specific as possible, power distribution to the rear has been described by the SOA Rep as 15-20%. The 90/10 split you have posted was once true, but it hasn't been used in several years.
Yes, obviously gearing has an impact. That's what I wrote the first time. (You might recall correcting me on my typo.) I'm not making excuses, you are changing the comparison. What my original example shows is that the choice of AWD system (or use of any such system at all) may have a very significant effect: enough to displace gearing, weight, and aerodynamics combined. If we were to loosen up the gearing to combat that effect, the vehicle would not perform as well (weak acceleration).
We know that fuel economy is an issue taken seriously by Honda/Acura. With the Acura brand, performance is also a key virtue. If they were going to use AWD in the TSX, why would they use a system that has a detrimental effect on both?
I think Robertsmx is closer when he suggests that they would use a hybrid drive with motors driving the rear, while the engine drives the front. I just doubt it'll be the TSX that gets that layout.
I would like to know how they are going to distinguish it both visually and price-wise from the Accord. Yes, it is a touch smaller, but not that much, and the Euro-Accord looks very similar to the American one, exceot for the size.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I did not find any in Germany however, even though Switzerland (at least the Zurich region) had a sprinkling of Hondas.
Later...AH
The next TL is anticipated as an '04 model.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Pictures of the exterior, TSX and TSX Type S at:
http://www.thehollywoodextra.com
Go to the "car page".
But I agree that the TSX should have a different dash than the NA Accord.
Now, I'm really waiting to see what the next Euro Type-R looks like.
I don't think I've ever been more anxious about Acura's future lineup...can't wait to see the new TSX (our version, at least), TL and RL.
I would like to get the new Accord, but with TSX and new TL, I'm not so sure any more.
Anyone know if the TSX is coming to Canada?
http://thehollywoodextra.com/acura/acura.html
It would be nice if Acura offered two variations of TSX, the first being...
Premium: 2.4 liter DOHC iVTEC, 200 HP/172 lb.-ft, 5-sp auto/6-sp manual (same as JDM 24TL).
The second model (Type-S) should be based on Euro-R which comes with 2.0 liter DOHC iVTEC, 220 HP @ 8000 rpm, 152 lb.-ft @ 6000 rpm and 6-sp manual. And this drivetrain gets an additional oomph for more low end torque courtesy of two small electric motors! That could make TSX an interesting option as a sub-30K sport sedan.
Those of TSX's potential competitors that have the same wheelbase, i.e., the Saab 9-3 and the Mazda6, have up to two inches more (the Passat and A4 have different wheelbases). I'm not comparing rear legroom to the Accord/Altima/Camry or, for that matter, the Bimmer3, Lexus IS300, and Infiniti G35, since those cars are really positioned somewhat differently in the marketplace.
Performance is a big issue and so is the styling, given the way the NA Accord has turned out. But I would think it would be in Honda's interest to rethink introducing a sedan with less rear leg room than virtually any of its competitors.