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
I've been trying to do a little research and have heard about the noise of the CAI, I will hold off on that until I can hear one.
On the sway bar, should do the front as well? As best I can tell the rear sway bar is 14mm but the front is 25 mm--so maybe the front is less necessary. Also apparently the front is much more labor instensive to change. Would doing only the rear throw off the car? I will probably do the rear sway bar soon--if it makes a difference it will be a great value.
What is you opinion on tower strut bars, much bang for the buck?
And, finally what about going to 17s? My understanding is larger tires/rims slow the car down. But will it help with handling in a noticeably way? I will probably hold off on the tires for a little while but will make the change. I have to get some use out of the current tires, I'm cheap or rather frugal...
Strut tower bar - Waste of money. The TSX already has one in front.
17's - This one is take it or leave it. By going to 17's, you get to "plus one," which means you're upgrading to lower profile tires. Lower profile means lower sidewall height, which translates to less flex and roll and better grip. 17's will be a couple lbs. heavier than 16's, if you compare two versions of the exact same wheel, but if you're going to upgrade your stock wheels with aftermarket 17's, you can easily find 17's that are 8 to 10 lbs. lighter than what you've got right now. The big factor with wheels is money. They're expensive - so if you want bang for the buck, stick with your stock wheels for now, and upgrade to some grippy, 16" summer tires.
Bottom line? Don't worry about going faster yet. Nothing short of forced induction will make your Accord (or any Accord (sedan), for that matter) into a "fast car." If you want to make your Accord more fun and exciting to drive, concentrate on handling first - that's where you'll get significant, bang for the buck gains.
Start with tires and the sway bar. These items alone will make a believer of you. Then, if you have more money burning a hole in your wallet, move up to a sport suspension (Honda, H&R, Eibach, etc.) and maybe lightweight 16" wheels.
Just my $.02
But on a recent test drive the salesman showed me the Nav system (on a TL, didn't have any in a TSX in stock). Oh my GOSH! It may be a toy but it's the most amazing thing I've ever seen. So the question is - who has a TSX with Nav? Is it worth it? Do you use it much? I do plan on taking some long trips in the car and it would probably come in handy. Once in a while I think it would even come in handy around town. Thanks for your input.
Sorry about that, spent too much time thinkng about my wish list...
Yes, if your Accord doesn't come with one stock, you should consider this upgrade. They're effective and inexpensive.
I have a 2004 w/ Nav and I love it. The Nav serves more than just directions (btw it is extremely accurate for the most part) but also other neat features like your radio, CD player, trip computer, MPG, calendar. It is manual with a touch screen and voice automated. A voice guides you along the road and details every exit and turn well in advance so you don't miss your destination. If you drive by a certain road by accident the map will change to show you how to get back to where you need to be or will point another direction. It also points out places of interest regarding gas stations, ATMs, restaurants (all kinds), leisure activities, shopping, you name it. You can pull up the nearest Honda and Acura dealers, parking garages, etc. My TSX was equipped with the very first version of the NAV and I put in an order for a new DVD. It costs $185 for the upgrade. I am not sure how often they make upgrades, though. So, there is a cost to keep upgrading the nav. It is well worth it in my opinion. I am terrible with directions and this gets me there. Plus it is VERY easy to use. It won't tell you about real time traffic conditions as some of the nicer Acuras do. I say it is worth it. Why hassle with the Atlas when you can just punch in your destination? Plus this gives you SO much more than what an Atlas can.
That might keep you happy for a couple years, then you'll be ready to swap for something sportier..
I'd think the CAI might be overkill... I personally would recommend against it.. Too big of a chance you won't like it vs. the small upgrade..
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
2) Yep, it gives the company phone number and address.
3) I am pretty sure you can located using a phone number. I got mine Jan 1 of this year so I am still getting used to it. This sounds like the same Nav system the TL uses from what you described.
Speak for yourself...;)
I mean, how often do you need to get to 60 in 8 seconds anyway :-)
It must be just me... I seem to need it a lot....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Outback 4-cyl 11.8 seconds to 60
VW Toureg V-6 11.9 seconds to 60
Ford Excursion 10+ seconds to 60 (with V-10)
The Outback is about the price of a TSX and the others are much more. They are all much slower, but they don't get hammered for being slow. What gives?
I will admit to being a little hard on the TSX because I think the Accord is a better value with much more room and less weight (Any slight handling shortcomings can be fixed with minimal effort) however the TSX is certainly not slow. I just don't get these hp wars.
It seems like just yesterday when the MB 600SEL was praised as the worlds fastest sedan because it could go nearly 140 mph. Just becasue many family sedans can now do that does not mean it isn't fast. 10 years from now will people be complaining because their Camrys don't go to 60 in less than 5 seconds?
BTW anyone who wants more power can get the TL. It is not that much more expensive and it gets about the same gas mileage even with its powerful V-6. On the other extreme I would have prefered the TSX with the exact engine and drivetrain as the Accord (yes - less power) because it would be just about as fast, and significantly more efficient - EPA 26/34.
And the Lacrosse...Well I'll just leave that one alone. I'm sure it's a nice car, but I'd highly doubt a significant number of Acura shoppers will know it exists. "Significant" being the active word.
Like I said, if you just want a fast car, they make several nice 4 door speedsters. EVO, WRX, SR-T. But they are all strippo and cost more. An all around entry-luxury with 300 hp will cost you at least $40K. There had to be a trade off.
And,btw,Consumer Reports 0-60 times was with the VSC engaged. The engine would have retarted power anytime there was wheel slip. Since most of us drive around with the VSC on, I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to test the car. But, it will yield a conservative estimate of acceleration.
I found that the fastest times were obtained by launching from close to idle and feathering the throttle as you release the clutch, quickly but progressively. I did several runs with VSC on and off, and basically got the same times either way.
My best (and repeatable) time after a little practice was 7.37 secs to 60 MPH. With summer tires, I'm confident that I could drop another 0.2 secs.
With lightweight wheels (I've found some nice looking 12.5 lb alloys), I expect to be in the high 6's.
A well launched automatic TSX should be somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 sec slower than the 6MT.
First, the 17X7 Velox PG-5s. It's a 12.5 lb forged wheel that costs $336. The downside is that it only comes in "Gunmetal" finish (handsome, but not stock looking).
http://www.veloxperformance.com/pdut_detail.asp?LineID=7&CateID=2- - - - - - - - - 0&ProductID=23&mmdd=product
The other one I really like is the Velox VX-6r. It's extremely lightweight for a cast wheel (14.5 lbs for 17X7), but it's available in a silver finish for a more stock appearance - and being a cast wheel, it costs only $180.
http://www.veloxperformance.com/pdut_detail.asp?LineID=7&CateID=2- 2&ProductID=34&mmdd=product
I haven't decided which one to go with yet. I really like the 12.5 lb wheel, but I'd prefer a stock appearance.
Edit: I can't get the links to work properly, so you'll have to manually select "Progear" and then the PG-5s. Then go to the "VX Competition Series" and select VX-6r.
I'm looking at the Toyo Proxes T1-S in 225/45-17. That tire weighs 21 lbs, which is 2 lbs less than stock. Combined with the potential 12 lb savings from the wheels, and it will be a significant 14 lbs per corner.
It should noticeably improve every dynamic aspect of the car.
I'll wait until after I get the flywheel done, so I can measure each improvement progressively.
even so, i think the TSX needs better acceleration when equipped with the automatic tranny. it feels like a slug (especially after 40 mph) compared to my V6 accord.
a manual tsx is far more appealing. the problem with me is that i get tiresome from shifting for myself after a while.
i read that honda is developing a 2.2l turbo engine with lots of torque for the new acura SUV. perhaps honda can use this powerplant for the tsx too.
That's certainly not the consensus among those in the know (tuner community). It seems almost certain that the TSX will get a mid-cycle bump in HP, a la RSX.
I've read speculation covering the gamut from 210-220, all the way to 240 HP.
There is also a pending Hondata ECU upgrade.
the 200 horsepower isn't the problem but having only 166 lb-ft is. the car doesn't have any verve when equipped with the auto tranny.
i certainly don't buy the argument that an auto tsx can't improve it's acceleration because of the TL. the V6 accord's acceleration closely matches the TL and you don't see the TL suffering because of that.
the TSX is the more nimble agile car where as the TL is more luxury orientated.
The way I understand it, Honda is just getting started with this engine.
Do you own a TSX? The car is very driveable, both around town and on the freeway. I have never found myself wanting for "grunt" in everyday situations. The car is not "lacking" in the powertrain department. Could it use more power? Sure, but it has enough right now. The car is not slow.
If it sounds like I'm defending the car, I am. It seems many folks who haven't so much as driven the car have a great deal of opinions about it, its HP (or seeming lack thereof), torque, etc, etc. The way I see it, the K24 is a marvelous engine, potent and smooth, and it's mated to a splendid six speed MT. It may well be the finest production n/a I4 on the planet right now.
If Honda chooses to continue developing it, and I think it's a foregone conclusion that they will, it will only be icing on the cake.
If you haven't already, do yourself a favor and take a 6MT version out for an extended test spin. Put it through its paces. I think you'll enjoy it.
Have a good one.
Short of turbocharging, there's not a lot you can do to extract more torque out of that engine. Even at 200hp, the TSX has only 5 lb-ft more torque than the Accord 4 cyl. The S2000 with 240hp still only manages 162 lb-ft from its 2.2 liters. When it comes to torque, it's all about displacement.
I am sure I would be happy with the 6MT TSX. I could probably live with the auto trans, having rented 4 cyl Camrys in the past and found them ok. My "problem" is that I'm currently driving a 3.5l V6 and, for the first time in my life, I've got abundant low end torque and I kind of like it! That's why I'm also looking at the TL and the G35 although size-wise, the TSX is very appealing. I won't make a final decision without driving the 6MT version and I may even try the auto tranny model again.
I'm sure you're right. I can vaguely remember my first drive in my mother's BMW 1600 back in 1968. That was the first time I'd realized that driving could be fun. Haven't had a fun ride since selling it in 1980 although my Eagle Talon wasn't bad, if underpowered.
I'm in South Bend so getting to Chicago is much easier than getting to Indy. I hate that drive down US31 plus our son just moved to Chicago so we're going more often than we used to.
Not really true. A significant number of the 4-cylinder US-market Accord Sedans are also built in Japan (Final Assembly point: Sayama, Saitama, Japan). I believe even the TSX is assembled in Sayama, Japan. Probably in the same plant and possibly on the same assembly line. All Accord Coupes (4 and 6 cylinder) are built in Ohio.
Also, another little known fact is that the 4-cylinder Accord Sedans have stiffer rear anti-roll bars when compared to the V6 Accord. With a lighter 4-cylinder up-front, that should tighten the handling significantly over the V6 Accord. For folks who are into that kind of things, the 4-cylinder Accord may be a few tweaks away from a great handling vehicle - tires, wheels etc.
Since the 4-cylinder Accord (equipped with the DOHC 2.4L i-VTEC engine) is around 200Lbs lighter than the TSX (Accord 4-cylinder EX-L Auto with Navigation to the TSX Automatic with Nav), and have similar Torque numbers and characteristics of the TSX engine, the around town and 0-60 performance of the Automatic versions should be pretty much identical, even with slightly less aggressive gearing of the 5AT when compared to the 5AT TSX. During much higher speeds or all-out acceleration runs, the TSX should be able to pull ahead at higher speeds - but who in their sane minds would indulge in such antics on public roads ?
Also, the Honda chief engineer involved in the development of the 3.0L Accord V6 admitted that with Premium fuel, the engine develops at least 10HP/Torque more than its current rating with regular fuel.
Just some tidbits.
The 4-cylinder Accord with the Hybrid drivetrain would have had city/hwy mileage in the 35/45 range, along with added power and torque (with the electric motor providing prodigious low-end torque, even though the peak number would only have risen by 10-15lbs/ft), which would have weakened the market for the TSX.
the accord and tsx are different kind of cars. an hybrid i4 torquey accord wouldn't change that. this hybrid accord would be less agile (extra weight from the electric engine and batteries) making it even less appealing to tsx enthusiasts.
The main reason Honda didn't put a hybrid 4 in the Accord is that the car would have been a dog. Honda wanted a premium hybrid vehicle - they already have a 4-cyl hybrid Civic for the econocar masses.
I also wonder if people who say that the Accord has a wallowy handling when compared to the TSX, compare the V6 Accord with the TSX, as opposed to comparing the handling of the 4-cylinder Accord with the TSX. There is a significant handling improvement in the 4-cylinder Accord when compared to the V6 equipped Accord, specifically since the 4-cylinder does not have to cart along an additional 250lbs in the front of the vehicle (that the V6 Accord is forced to), in addition to the suspension tweaks like a beefier sway-bar in the rear of the 4-cylinder Accord that should contribute to sharper handling on curves, when compared to the porkier V6 Accord equipped with the narrower rear sway-bar.
No question that the TSX should handle better than the 4-cylinder Accord but the handling gap certainly is narrower than when comparing the handling of the V6 Accord with the TSX. Just another thought, especially since the underlying "guts" (platform) in both vehicles are identical.
Of course the nasty rear-end of the Accord cannot be remedied, which is another matter altogether.
So the addition of the hybrid drivetrain (the Accord V6 version is tuned for high-performance and mileage, unlike the unit in the Civic that is tuned to enhance mileage alone), should power the 4-cylinder Accord forward much more authoritatively than it does now, while the gas engine should provide mid-range and high-end torque/horsepower. I would venture that the performance of the car would be indistinguishable from a small V6, without adding too much to the weight of the car, while significantly improving mileage (35/45 city/hwy ?).
I doubt the car would become a "dog" with the addition of a hybrid drivetrain.
i have no doubt that an i4 hybrid accord would be a better performer in terms of acceleration than the tsx especially with an automatic. but it would still lack the agility and the solid road feel of the tsx. the extra weight of the tsx over the larger but lighter accord is due to the increased body stiffness. this is what gives the tsx that german like solid ignot feel that the accord lacks.