I'm from the US but based in Singapore. I just cruised a whole lot full of 2003 Asia spec Honda Accord 4dr sedans in a variety of colors. IMO, the car is about as attractive as the new Camry, (slab sided, "massive", kind of "formal" looking, but not up to par with the Mazda 6, and definitely not "sporty". Still, it is way better looking than the new US spec Accord!
TSX's styling is more subtle and has finer details, as is the case with many Hondas. Mazda6, is more about 'look at me', as has been Mazda's case. So, it comes down to what you value more.
I find TSX's styling, more refined and mature, with or without ground effects.
I just looked at the pics of the Mazda 6 and quite frankly, the TSX and Mazda 6 look very similar for the average eye. Remove the front grille and they could easily pass for stable mates.... I think price will be a definitive factor affecting sales of either one, and I would expect the Mazda to be cheaper than the Acura. Will the Acura have more than the prestige brand name to make up the difference? Zoom zoom zoom, the Mazdas have been selling extremely well in the past couple years, and the Protegé has been the best selling car in Quebec, perhaps Canada, for the past couple of years (of course, that's because Mazda has been selling a completely bare-bone Protegé model with the engine as an option... :-)).
Having seen both cars "in the flesh" I'd have to disagree with the comment that "the TSX's styling is more subtle and has finer details, while the Mazda6 is more about 'look at me'".
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.
Mazda6s with automatic, Comfort Pkg., Sport Pkg., leather, sunroof, Bose Pkg., wheel locks, casette player, alarm sensor upgrade, NE emissions (required because I am in MD), cargo net, and side airbags MSRPs for $26,675. Add TTL and it's easily $28K.
I know I equipped a 6 on Mazda's site, and it came up to $28K. I did add some "accessories" though. That might have been the difference, I don't remember now.
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.
Good discussion here. Sorry I'm late to the party. Here's a few tid bits.
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.
Varmint, could you elaborate on your meaning of drag coefficient? I thought it was a number that factored in all drag, including aerodynamic and frictional losses. Drag may depend on length of an object, or the shape of it, but the drag COEFFICIENT can be compared across different shapes (if my physics 101 class recollection is correct).
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.
Coefficient of Drag is just that, a coefficient. It does not equate to drag, but one of the variables that affects the net result. Nonetheless, it is important to have a low coefficient of drag, just like it is better to have a low coefficient of friction if you don't want high friction components.
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.
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).
"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.
Sorry, that should have read, "geared numerically lower". You are correct. The point being that the Forester should be more fuel efficient than the Honda. Yet, it isn't. When I ask myself why, I keep coming back to the permanent AWD set up.
It works with acceleration performance, too. Though, in this case, the CR-V's gearing is an advantage.
Diploid - I was thining of the comparisons between the TSX and Mazda6 (not the Lexus). I don't expect that the differences in size will be significant. It's just that the discussion was very focused on drag numbers and seemed to be missing the other variables that make up "aerodynamics".
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.
Road noise may be an issue, but not wind noise. Also, road noise may have to do with stiffer suspension and a choice of harder tires than anything else.
Sorry, that should have read, "geared numerically lower". You are correct. The point being that the Forester should be more fuel efficient than the Honda. Yet, it isn't. When I ask myself why, I keep coming back to the permanent AWD set up.
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:
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 ??
AH - We're getting off topic with these two cars, but there are two problems with those comparisons.
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.
I was responding to the statement above, which said that the CRV is more fuel efficient than the Forester. Now there seems to be an explanation of why it is not !!!
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.
Ickes_mobile - Nice pics. Something about the rear quarter views reminds me of the Mitsu Galant. I think it's the decklid. I'll have to compare actual pics.
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.
that the hybrid Acura was going to be a hi-po sports car. The TSX is going to be an 8/10 TL, right?
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 drove one (previous generation Accord Type-R) when I was in Europe (England) last year. Looks/drives entirely different from the North American version. Drives a lot "tighter". I could not drive too aggressively, since I was still getting used to shifting with the left hand. But as a "driver's car", it was certainly better than the US version and was basically indistinguishable from a RWD car. Absolutely no torque-steer whatsoever.
I did not find any in Germany however, even though Switzerland (at least the Zurich region) had a sprinkling of Hondas.
Does anyone have info on it? It should debut in '03, shouldnt it? To be considered a success, I think it must approach the G35 in visual impact and driving dynamics. Giving Honda's design record & it being FWD, I wouldn't count on it! Or else it should content being ES challenger, but Acura dont (cant) do interiors/luxury like Lexus. Tough call for Honda!
The Euro Accord was tested on autoexpress.co.uk. They liked it. They compared it with some other family sedans in Europe (Mondeo, Mazda6, etc) and it wins in some categories and loses in others. Overall it's a good car, but no standout in any particular area.
I clicked on that link for the Euro Accord, and as soon as the page loaded, one of those annoying pop-up ads that covers the whole screen shows up. It was a Mazda6 advertisement. Advertising is getting crazy. A manufacturer can have their ad pop up in front of an editorial review of a competitor's car. Slick.
nippon- the European reviewers are often more harsh than the American ones. Check out some of the reviews for Toyotas and you'll see they're less than 'ringing endorsements' as well.
for saying this car will go head to head with the BMW 3-Series - yeah right! Audi A4 and Saab 9-3 maybe. Mazda did the same thing with the 6. CAR's review of the 6 was that it was a nice try, but Mondeo and Vetra, and maybe Passat was more realistic...
That's also true. But that review takes that claim from Honda to be one of its major points - sort of in a Christian Wardlaw-ish kind of way, if recall the Accord article from Edmunds.
You're right. These jounalists should just call the manufacture on the PR spin in the first paragraph and then get over it. No need to belabor the point or make it the focus of the review. As in, OK, its no BMW, but what is it?
I don't have a problem with the dash...it's very high quality, almost on par with an Audi's, but I still think the Audi's overall execution garners better results.
But I agree that the TSX should have a different dash than the NA Accord.
this sight is known to fudge things and is not reliable. if there are going to be any changes made to the Euro accord for the upcoming acura you're not going to find that out from those pictures.
When I see Car A being compared to Car B, Car C, Car D and Car E in each area where B, C, D and E might excel in, I think of something... Car A might not be outstanding in one area, but offers a good mix of great qualities. This has been Honda's strength in the past, and it sure looks like Euro-Accord carries it forward. Now, I'm really waiting to see what the next Euro Type-R looks like.
Is there any indication on which tyres will be on the TSX? Honda/Acura has a bad record of putting tires on their cars which are generally... crap. If they put on some Michelin Pilots and ditch the old Michelin Energy tires they put on the NA accord it'd make the car so much more attractive out of the box.
The TSX will most likely be at the bigger 2003 auto shows (Detroit, NY, etc). Can't wait to see it in the flesh, as well as any minor exterior changes (if any).
Honda/Acura uses Michelin Energy Plus MXV4 in Accord EX and EXV6, and in CL/TL/RL (16 inch rims). With Type-S models and Accord EXV6 Coupe/MT (17" rims) Michelin Pilot XGT4 is being used. If TSX is identical to JDM Accord 24T or 24TL, it would come with 16" rims but if it uses chassis tuning of Accord 24S, it will come with Pilot (P215/50/R17) which would still be a compromise between ride quality, tread life and performance. The real rubber gets in Type-R/Euro-R trim only. The Euro-R gets high performance P215/45/R17 tires.
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.
Rear dimensions could be a problem. While rear hip room in the Euro Accord is over 54 inches, rear leg room appears to be a little less than 34 inches (this may be off a small fraction because I had to take into account the fact that Europeans measure rear leg room differently).
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.
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.