Acura TSX

uncledavid

Chris - I emailed the auto section editor at Consumer Reports and asked him about the EBD issue (despite initial reports to the contrary, the TSX does not have EBD). He said that they have found zero difference in the braking performance of cars with and without EBD. So, he basically saw it as a total non-issue. He did not feel the same way about stability assist (in its various forms) which does seem to have more value as an add on.

That said, the TSX's brakes are just average for the class. The SAAB has some of the best brakes in the class.

The TSX does not have many blind spots. I find visability to be excellent. It got great crash test scores and was at the top of CR's safety rating.

There is a handsfree kit for the TSX - I don't know much about it. The audio system does not have an aux input, although there are several aftermarket solutions for that. The add on cables for IPOD now work on Navi TSX as well, btw.

The Saab was rated much worse than average for reliability in CR's latest survey, btw. The TSX was the second most reliable vehicle in its class (only the IS300 was rated higher).

I'm not sure what complicated gadgets you are talking about in the TSX. If you get a non-Navi vehicle, it doens't really have that many more gadgets than the typical Honda or Toyota sedan. I'll be shocked if reliability is not rock solid.

gee35coupe

is it's simplicity. It has like one internal moving part. The apex seals wear out, but other than that it's waay less complicated than a piston engine.

As far as the Mz6, I don't know about the sedan, but the latest CR did NOT recommend the wagon. That may be significant.

uncledavid

The RX8 and M6 both had below average reliability in CR's latest survey and, accordingly, are knocked off the recommended list. Both vehicles did great in the road tests though.

thoon

Does the TSX have enough power to carry 5 people with the AC on full blast or up pretty steep mountains or the hills of San Francisco? The only thing holding me back from the TSX is it's 4 cylinder. I'm leaning more towards an Accord V6 or Camry V6.

xplorx4

It has decent power, although with 5 (adult) passengers, the issue won't be lack of power it will be lack of rear hip room. I wouldn't want to be the middle passenger in the rear seat for any more than about 15 minutes.

My TSX 5AT when loaded with 5 adult men (150-230 lbs each) can keep up with traffic on WB Hwy 92 between 101 and 280.

If you are concerned about power, bring along 2 or 3 of your friends when you go for a test drive.

uncledavid

I live in Los Angeles and I sometimes have to make the drive to the bay area. I've expereinced the hills out there, as well as the long climb up the grapevine on the way back to LA. My TSX never stuggles, even when loaded with people and camping gear.

The TSX does not have the low-end torque of the Honda, Toyota, and Nissan V6 engines. But, it does fine on hills and around town.

thoon

Is it possible to change the navi while driving on the TSX? I heard Toyota has a safety feature that makes it impossible to change navigation directions while moving. You have to pull over and stop the car to change address, directions, etc. Is the Acura navi the same way?

jkobty2

If you are used to low end torque, then you will find the TSX very annoying to drive. But if you are used to pushing the car and shifting around 4000 rpms or above, then you will find it reasonable. It needs to be revved to get it to move, but it does not mind the revving. However if you drive it like that, I found out that it uses more gas than a six cyl car. So whats the point?

rjg96

I currently own a 2001 BMW 325i. I like the style, and the RWD. But, I hate BMW's service and stupid problems that they never fix (like window regulators breaking).

I've always been a big fan of Hondas, although I've never owned one. And, I love the interior and exterior (except for the FWD-driven front overhang), but I really want a RWD car. I can't figure out why Honda/Acura refuse to bring out a RWD car in this segment?!! If they did, they could so easily destroy BMW-- it would have superb handling, a fantastic shifter, a great engine, relaibility. I'm getting excited just thinking about it. I realize that they try to minimze the amount of platforms to save costs- so the tsx and tl are both built on variations of the Accord platform. Fine. BUT, Honda made a special RWD platform just for the very low production S2000. IF they could do it for a low-production sports car (which they still managed to sell for under 30k), why can't they do it for a sedan? Does anyone know? Is there any hope for a RWD sedan in the future? I really hope so, cause there's no way i'm buying a new BMW.

I realize that Honda gets good handling out of FWD (and now AWD), but there's still no subtitute (IMO), for the feel of a balanced RWD car.

uncledavid

Thoon, changing the NAVI is no problem. I do it all the time. For example, I'm on the highway, and I hit a traffic jam. I just tell the NAVI to re-route me, on sidestreets. That can be done in the TSX using voice commands as well as the screen.

uncledavid

I think you are being a little unfair to the TSX. It is not nearly as torque-deficient as you are suggesting. I drive mine pretty hard, and I don't find a need to keep it reving about 4000 RPM, no do I find that it eats gas. Despite my heavy foot around town, I'm getting about 25 mpg in mixed driving.

The i-VTEC system leads to a very flat torque curve, with most of the torque available under 2,500 RPM. It doens't peak until after 4,000 RPM, but you have most of the power available at the low end.

In day-to-day driving, the TSX feels like it has a small V6 in it. In fact, I'd argue that the stiff ride of the TSX and annoying sharp cutoff of the HIDs are the real limitations of this vehicle. I actually see the drivetrain as a strength.

fedlawman

"I can't figure out why Honda/Acura refuse to bring out a RWD car in this segment?!! If they did, they could so easily destroy BMW-- it would have superb handling, a fantastic shifter, a great engine, relaibility."

I think you answered your own question. The TSX has superb handling, a fantastic shifter, a great engine, and reliability. Why does it need to be RWD?

uncledavid

I think the real answer to his question is that Honda is not as big a company as Toyota or Nissan/Renault and lacks the capacity (or expertise) to mass-market RWD vehicles. The TSX, RL, and TL are all basically iterations of the Accord platform.

rjg96

I guess so-- but they were able to create the S2000. It wouldn't be such a stretch to use a lot of htat platform in a sedan. As far as marketing it, there wouldn't be anythin different about marketing/selling a RWD sport sedan as opposed to a FWD sport sedan.

rjg96

YEs, the TSX does have nice steering, good hanlding, very good shifter, a great engine and great reliability. RWD would give us a superb handling, steering feel and shifter (and much nicer exterior proportions too). It really does make a difference in those areas. Honda does a great job w/ FWD. But, for a sports sedan, RWD is better. Now, if Honda/Acura continue to refuse to implement RWD, I guess i'll be in a real quandary. There's also hope that Lexus or Infiniti will clean up their interiors--- but I have a feeling that Honda would put together the overall best sport sedan. The fact that they come so close w/ FWD is almost frustrating and tantalizing. Going w/ RWD would literally destroy all the competition.

varmint

The high x-bone chassis under the S2000 would not be an easy switch to sedan form. Not to mention the factory where it's produced does not have a great deal of capacity.

robr2

IMHO, Honda/Acura is about doing what it does best and offering a value proposition. They tend to offer 9/10ths of the performance at 7/10's the price. That's even the formula for the S2000 and NSX - interestingly enough their only 2 RWD vehicles.

Also, even though they were able to engineer RWD platforms for the above, I doubt they make any money on them. They are both Halo vehicles.

tribbles

Speaking of future direction; when is the '05 TSX due out? What does it have that the '04 doesn't or will it be like the '04/'05 TL where there is hardly any difference.

fedlawman

"RWD would give us a superb handling, steering feel and shifter (and much nicer exterior proportions too). It really does make a difference in those areas."

Sorry, I disagree. To protect us from ourselves, a RWD TSX would still be tuned to understeer (just like the 3 series and IS300 are), and at 8/10ths, it would handle pretty much the same as it does now.

The TSX offers 98% of the performance of the 325i just the way it is. Ask yourself how often would you really get to drive a "near-luxury" street car hard enough to extract that extra 2%? Same for steering feel - the TSX is easily a match to the IS300, but even a RWD TSX wouldn't have that BMW magic steering.

Honestly, if I could have bought a minimally equipped (moonroof, sport package) 325i for about $27,000 and gotten $5,000 for my '93 Accord trade-in, I'd be driving a Bimmer right now. Fortunately for me though, Honda brought the Euro-market Accord to the US, dressed it up, and priced it right. The E46 is a fine sport sedan, but seriously, it's too heavy and softly sprung for serious track duty - just like the TSX and IS300.

In the "near-lux" segment, the TSX offers as reasonable a sport/comfort compromise as anything else in it's class. RWD would be nice, but so would a bigger rear sway bar, trunk-mounted battery, lighter wheels, LSD, etc.

audifreak21

I was just looking at TSX's and the 2005 are the same as the 2004's.
Also, I was not impressed with the TSX one bit. I drove an automatic and the car was a dog until 4000rpm and then the acceleration was uninspiring.

Also, the interior was lackluster and from the reviews I read in Car & Driver, Automobile etc I was expecting A LOT MORE. I was very disappointed.

One positive was that the TSX was very stable and the ride was smooth as butter. But having owned an Acura before the TSX was a true Acura... neutral, stale and boring most of the time.

Reliability? Yes, but I never keep cars past the warranty. Performance? Not unless you are punching it out all of the time. Price? Very low compared to competition and you can tell the difference inside the cabin.

I went elsewhere.

audifreak21

I will disagree with this quote:

"The TSX offers 98% of the performance of the 325i just the way it is. Ask yourself how often would you really get to drive a "near-luxury" street car hard enough to extract that extra 2%?"

The BMW offers a lot of its performance down low. Meaning low in the revs, not high. So in my opinion you get to use more of the performance envelope in town because you don't have to mash down the accelerator like you do with the TSX. The same goes for cars like the A4 and Volvo S40. Most of their performance is down low. Volvo = 236 ft lbs of torque from 1500 rpm up. A4 = 166 ft lbs of torque from 1950 rpm up. On the other hand the 166 ft lbs of torque the TSX has isn't fully available until 4500 rpm. That's a significant difference in about town performance. And then the final blow is the Acura, by trait, is a much more subdued car than any of the three previously mentioned. They all have more aggressive steering, gear ratios and rides. Making, again in my opinion, for much more sporty cars around town and overall. Just my $.02

varmint

"So in my opinion you get to use more of the performance envelope in town because you don't have to mash down the accelerator like you do with the TSX."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't consider driving with the pedal pressed half-way "performance driving". Jogging might be good exercise, but it's not an Olympic event.

fedlawman

I agree with your basic opinion of the 5 AT model.

A 6-speed TSX will change your opinion.

uncledavid

audifreak21 - if the TSX is a "dog" then you, yourself, own a dog. The TSX has better zero-to-sixty numbers in nearly every published test than the A4 1.8T. The only time I've seen the A4 do any better is when the CVT front wheel drive(which is very efficient) goes up against the 5AT. In that case, the Audi usually does a 0-60 in about .4 seconds less (a negligable difference). As for the "dog down low idea", the TSX reaches about 80% of peak torque below 2,500 and, again, has better 0-30 times than the Audi A4. When you downgrade the TSX's acceleration, you are also downgrading your own vehicle's performance because the TSX is the faster vehicle.

There have also been a few car mags (like Automobile, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports) that compared the handling of the two cars. Again, the TSX won out over the A4 in EVERY SINGLE COMPARISON.

Sorry, my friend, but your personal biases not withstanding, the TSX will outperform the FWD A4 1.8T in every statistic (except braking). Your making your conclusions based on your own short test drive. But, nobody who has spent much time with both vehicles would agree with you and, in fact, none of the experts do.

The interior issues are personal choice. But, as I've said, we own a TSX and an A4 1.8T (FWD, with the 5AT). I'm in both vehicles all the time. I find the TSX to be laid out a lot more nicely, and to have a lot of very thoughful touches that are missing in the Audi's interior. For example, the HVAC controls are ridiculously low in the A4.

I'd say that the Audi's material quality is a notch higher. But, overall, I prefer the TSX's interior.

uncledavid

Basically, your post suggests to me that you have never driven the TSX. You certainly don't have to "mash down the accelerator" in the TSX to get torque down low. It is true that MAXIMUM torque is not available until about 4,000 RRM but that has to do with the way the i-VTEC system works. First of all,the torque curve is extremely flat, with about 80% of peak torque being available right off the line. The variable valve timing system is designed to produce torque through the RPM range, not just at the top end. The engine also revs extremely efficiently, so you don't have to keep it on the boil all the time. Around town, if actually feels fairly lively under most circumstances. I suspect that you have never driven the TSX and are making assumptions based purely on the published numbers.

As I mentioned earlier, we also have an A4 1.8T FWD. That engine might work better with a CVT or a manual tranny (we have the 5AT). But, it is nowhere near as responsive as the TSX at low revs. In fact, the car is fairly pokey off the line. The turbo lag really detracts from the fun of driving the car. Lack of power is my biggest complaint with that car, although I'm not thrilled with the poor quality control either. Ever time I wind up driving the A4, I long for the responsiveness of the TSX.

As far as the claim that Volvo, A4 etc have "more aggressive steering", I'd dispute that as well. The A4 AWD might handle better, but the FWD doesn't handle nearly as well as our TSX. And, in fact, my opinion is shared by Consumer Reports. In their latest review they commented that the A4 handling was "not very sporty" and I believe that Car and Driver and Automobile reached similar conclusions. The A4 and TSX have been pitted against each other in multiple comparos. Each time, the TSX firmly trounced the A4 and the Volvo. In fact, CR rated the Volvo's handling about as low as the Audi's.

I also don't know where you get the idea that the TSX has such a soft pleasant ride. In fact, that is one of the few real world areas in which the A4 is superior to the TSX. Our A4 with summer tires rides about as well as our TSX with touring all-season tires. I'm willing to bet that, equipped with similar rubber, the A4 would have a more comfortable ride. The TSX is downright stiff, and I see the ride as the major weakness of the vehicle. Again, I really have to wonder if you've ever really driven the TSX. At best, you seem to have made some very strong (and extremely inaccurate) conclusions based on a 10-min test drive.

I'm really not trying to give you the flame here, but I don't think you are being very fair to the TSX. I like our Audi A4, but I'm happier driving the TSX. And, in fact, with the TSX on the scene, I can't see any reason to ever buy an A4 again. The A4 has better brakes, and better quality of interior materials (IMO) but is inferior to the TSX in every other area.

fedlawman - I'll have to respectfully disagree with you about the TSX having 96% of the performance offered by a Beemer. My dad has a 330 that I get to drive every once in a while. Although I love my TSX, and think it is a ton of fun to drive, the 3-series feels like an extension of the driver. Motor Trend called the TSX "an utter failure" as a 3-series clone, and I'd tend to agree. Of course, my dad paid about $40,000 for his car and I paid $28,500 (with NAV).

fedlawman

We'll have to agree to disagree. I read that review and don't completely agree with it. The TSX is Honda's answer to the BMW 325i. It's a "Japanese 325i." People who like the way Japanese cars look, feel, and drive love the TSX. People who have always driven "classic" RWD, European sedans simply don't "get it" - and they never will.

Of course there are differences between the TSX and 325i as you and I have both remarked on before (ride, steering, transmission, throttle response, etc.) but if you count the pros/cons for each car, I'd say they come out even in the end.

I've tracked my TSX several times now and have seen for myself that it gives up nothing to the E46 325i in terms of performance. The TSX brakes as deeply, carries the same speed through the corners, and it tracks out as aggressively (although I use a slightly different line). Different approach - same lap times.

The bottom line here is that the TSX is a fine sport sedan that is very rewarding and fun to drive. It was never intended to "beat" the 325i, just "equal" it with a similarly rewarding driving experience and an extra measure of reliability and value thrown in.

fedlawman

"If you are used to low end torque, then you will find the TSX very annoying to drive."

"The BMW offers a lot of its performance down low. Meaning low in the revs, not high. So in my opinion you get to use more of the performance envelope in town because you don't have to mash down the accelerator like you do with the TSX."

rpm 325i TSX
2000 150 149
2500 160 156
3000 168 160
3500 176 162
4000 173 164
4500 169 166
5000 172 163
5500 167 162
6000 161 159
6500 142 155
7000 >red 150

The TSX offers 90% of peak torque from 2000 RPM all the way to 7000 RPM. I can't think of any other car in this class that offers a wider, flatter curve...

uncledavid

Don't get me wrong, Fedlawman. I love my TSX and for the money,don't think it can be beat. It totally swamps anything in the class (the Saab 9-3, Audi A4 1.8T, Volvo). In fact, I think it is a mismatch in some cases. It if far more car than the competitors from Saab, Audi, and Volvo. I just don't think it competes will with the BMW 3 series in terms of handling, ride, and brakes.

fedlawman

That's what's great about this forum. Even people who own and drive the same car can have different opinions about it.

The highly subjective nature of vehicle performance and dynamics just ilustrates that you can't rely on test data alone. The test drive is the most important part of shopping for a car.

uncledavid

Hard to disagree with that. Althought test drives are often too short for conclusions!

dudleyr

Maybe it is just me, but I find it somewhat absurd that there is an argument about which of two cars is more sporty, and they are both equiped with automatic transmissions.

Kinda like arguing about which jacket is warmer when it is not zipped up. ; ^ )

uncledavid

dudleyr, I don't agree that a car can't be sporty without a MT. Handling, breaking, and acceleration all make a car sporty, whether or not it has an MT. In my experience, cars with MT are a lot more fun to drive than a car with AT. But, that doesn't mean the AT makes a car "not sporty." With torque-less engines like the Audi 1.8T, I think a conventional AT basically ruins the vehicle (although the CVT is actually quite response). Its a little different with the TSX's flat torque curve, or with the bigger engines in vehicles like the G35.

pwguy

I notice the EPA Estimated Fuel Mileage has changed for the 2005 TSX. Now the manual transmission car is rated higher than the automatic. Man 22/31 and Auto 21/30.

Wonder what has changed to make the manual better and the auto worse than they were before. All the published gear ratios are the same.

http://www.acura.com/models/model_specs_index.asp?module=tsx

Previously I was reluctant to get the manual and get worse mileage than with an auto. This definitely tips the balance for me.

uncledavid

There was some discussion of this issue at another site. The information is inconsistent across sources. The window stickers on the 2005 apparently show the Auto getting better milage, as does the new brochure. The new brochure also shows the TSX with a smaller turning radius than originally reported. It would be possible for the figures to change, however, becasue the EPA sometimes revises their estimates.

My personal advice: Get whichever tranny you would prefer, and don't worry about the one MPG issue. I drove both vehicles and found the MT a lot more fun to drive, but decided to get the AT because I live in a high traffic urban area (Los Angeles). Test drive both, and go for the one that will make you happiest.

allaboutme1

I bought a TSX about 2 months ago and have been too busy driving it to post.

I got the manual tranny and love it. I am amazed by the number of postings from people that really wanted a manual but opted for the auto due to city driving concerns.

I commute into boston everyday, and have no regrets. I have become a master at driving, drinking coffee and talking on the cell phone at the same time as down shifting.

All of you that are hesitating with purchasing the MT, bite the bullet and do it!!

My only compliant with the car is that there is some sort of rattle on the passenger side. seems to be coming from the dash and seems to be tempature and humidity dependent.

But again I love this car!

Go Pats!!

uncledavid

allaboutme1 - I was able to cure all the rattles in my car by cleaning the gaskets on the doors and sunroof with vinylex. The fault tolerances on the TSX are really low (no large gaps between anything). I've found that the only real source of rattles is from the rubber around the doors and sunroof. If you get that slick and clean with Vinylex, 303, NXT Protectant, etc, the car becomes really quiet.

johnny420

Hey, uncledavid,

You're spot on about the door gaskets. I was finally able to narrow the few "rattles" I was getting down to the seals. They are definitely temperature-dependent. The sunroof seal can do the same thing. More of a low-toned rustling than a true rattle.

I'll have to try the Vinylex. Do you remember where you purchased it? It sounds like any decent protectant will suffice.

Johnny

fedlawman

FYI

Vinylex didn't work for me. The dealer smeared my door seals with a vaseline-like substance - that did the trick.

robr2

The dealer smeared my door seals with a vaseline-like substance - that did the trick.

Could that be the infamous Honda shinetsu grease? It was used to clear up the sticking of Odyssey sliding doors.

uncledavid

Vinylex is available at Target and most auto parts stores. I think I bought my last bottle at Pep Boys.

I think any decent protectant will probably suffice. But, what you basically want is to get the gaskets squeaky clean, and kind of slippery. Vinylex seems to do a good job at both tasks, although I'm sure other products will work as well. Lately, I've been using NXT protectant (just because I happen to have a bottle around). I'd use 303, but that damn stuff is too expensive for this kind of task.

The key seems to be to really work it in to all parts of the gasket. I tried it a few months ago on a rattle in the door, and it didn't help much. So, last week, I did it again. I cleaned the gasket completely, and then completely coated it with Meguirs NXT protectant.

Anyway, the TSX has a reputation for squeaks and rattles, but once I took care of the gasket problem, I had myself a very quiet car.

boz10

It's been a while since my last post, like most of us too busy to write. I've had my TSX since May 2003. So far it's been a blast. Other than having to replace the brain on the security system about a year ago, rotors under warranty @ 25000 km and few nuisance squeeks around the sunroof gasketing that was easily fixed with some magic white lube the car has been trouble-free. The only out of pocket expense I have incurred so far is a replacement $205.00 (Canadian) fog light which got hit by a rock on the freeway about 1 1/2 months ago. FYI I have a close friend who bought an A4 1.T quattro and recently decided after numerous problems to buy a $2,500.00 extended warranty. Am I ever glad I bought what I did.
     My complaints about the car are limitted to 2. As we all know nothings perfect. Because I have the auto I would love to have a little more low end grunt of the line. I have drivven the Manual and if it wasn't for a spouse who doesn't know and doesn't want to learn how to drive a stickshift that would be in my driveway and eliminate the complaint I have about low-end power. The car performs fine above 30km/h but below that figure it feels like your everyday Honda Civic (not that there's anything wrong with a Civic, I owned one for 9 trouble-free years, I traded it in and never changed a thing other than 1 set of front brakes and a muffler, even all the lamps were original). My only other complaint is the rubber they put on the car. I'm sure the rubber will last a long time but the performance of the Michelin Pilots in wet weather is poor. Won't matter much longer as I need to put on my snow's this weekend and won't be seeing the 17's for about 5 months.
    I have read about some people complaining that their leather is wearing prematurely. I definately do not have this problem. The interior of the car is still like brand new. Maybe those people with this problem don't condition their leather religously like I do every 3 months?
    I can tell you it took me almost 12 month's to decide what to get and my paranoia was that I would buy something and love something else 1 month later. I am happy to say this is not the case. I still turn around and look at it after parking it in front of my office. I love the direction Honda's going with their Acura line. With the new TL and most recently RL I believe that eventually people will talk of the brand the same way they do in regards to Lexus, MB....etc. That's my 2 cents.

uncledavid

Boz, is you are not getting enough power off the line I have two comments:

1) Are you using premium?

2) the quickest mod to get better acceleration would be to add really light wheels. The TSX's wheels are a bit on the heavy side. If you get wheels that are about 5 pounds lighter, it would be like adding 10 hp to the vehicle.

mark_wny

I realize there is another board on this - but it's read-only and a little dated. I live in Western NY, where the roads are in pretty rough shape - they are also broad & flat - or with gentle hills. I'm thinking that the tight handling of the TSX might be wasted - and that the softer ride of the Accord would be more appropriate. Any comments?

venus537

if you're thinking of an auto TSX there'll be a world of difference in thrust in comparison to the accord V6.

uncledavid

Only you can decide if the TSX is suitable for your driving situation, but as a TSX owner I can tell you this: It handles great, but has a really stiff ride. If a smooth, compliant ride is really important to you, the TSX is not a good option.

If you wanted the best of all worlds, you can step up to a TL which is supposed to have a nicer ride than the TSX, but handling that is a lot better than the Accord.

venus537

or you can step down to a manual accord EX 4 cylinder and get a fairly agile sedan with more room and save lots of money.

it all depends on your priorites and preferences on which car to get.

boz10

Yes, all I use is premium, 94 octane to be exact. In the 30,000 km I have driven exactly 2 tanks of gas have been 91 octane and all the rest have been 94. WRT the wheels, I have no interest in changing them as I prefer the look of a stock vehicle over a modified one. I don't really want to look like some teenage kid. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

uncledavid

Boz, I understand your perspective on wheels. I just believe that is the single most significant "mod" that can be made to this vehicle. The stock wheels are something like 22 pounds, and the stock tires are 25 pounds. With lighter wheels and tires, you could probably shave about .5 seconds of the 0-60. I also think there are some traction issues at launch.

Anyway, you wil find that, over time, the performance of the car improves substantially. Honda engines are always at their worst in the first 5,000 miles of use. After the break-in, the performance improves and the MPG goes up.

sky4est

I just order my 2005 TSX and I was wondering if anybody has some insight on the paint and stain protection plan you can get from the dealer. In Sacramento it's a service called 'touch of class'. Is it worth the cash? Also, besides wheel locks are there any must have options on this car?
Thanks,
Sky

uncledavid

Sky,

Paint and interior protection are a total ripoff, and a complete waste of money. You get more exterior protection from Zanio or Klasse (see relevant forums here at Edmunds) and/or Scotchguard on the interior. Definitely give that a pass.

Besides wheel locks, the options that many TSX owners want include the trunk tray, mudflaps, and all season mats. The standard floormats that come with the TSX fall apart after about 10,000 miles. So, insist on the rubber all season ones.

If you want a spoiler or fog lights, make sure you have that thrown in at the time of the deal.

Good luck,
David