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
Honda Accord vs Acura TSX
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"But the Accord drives much heavier than the Accord."
Say What?
Did you mean to say the V6 Accord drives much better than the I4 Accord ?
---OR --
Did you meand to say the TS drives much better than either Accord?
To be fair my 05 6-speed V6 Accord with 17 inch wheeels drives pretty nice, but not near as well as my 2006 S2000
The S2000 drives much better htan either the TSX, V6 Accord or I4 Accord.
Cheers,
MidCow
Are those features, decidedly better styling, and a premium nameplate worth $1k-$2k more and worth giving up 40 horses, a good deal of interior space, and the ability to run at full power on regular unleaded?
It's quite a dilemma!
When I bought my TSX the choice was easier - I wanted a 6spd, the Accord V6 didn't offer one. That's no longer a reason to get one or the other.
I also bought the TSX for the way it drives. I like Driving, as opposed to Riding, and in the Accord I felt much more like a rider, even when driving (if that makes any sense!) The TSX just feels like it caters to folks who want to wind it up and haul butt around curves. Not sure if the Accord is improved in this way but I wager it's better at hauling passengers than butt - around curves, anyway.
I also bought it for the styling - I really, really like the looks of the TSX and really, really hate the looks of the Accord. Mostly the rear of the Accord, just terrible IMO. And the "exclusive" 17-inch alloys are ugly. Accords are also too commonplace for my taste: for every 20 Accords I see I'll see 1 TSX. This would still be a differentiator for me. Looks and performance are both important.
But do the luxo features alone warrant the TSX? I guess now we're talking about xenon headlights, memory seats, advanced dash cluster, keyfob stuff, 8 speaker stereo, bluetooth... maybe a few others. Personally, the xenon lights are freaking awesome and the windows-down via remote very useful, I use it almost every day.
I dunno. Both cars pack a lot of the same great stuff inside - but at the same time, IMO, they're very different vehicles. I absolutely cannot see myself in an Accord - even the updated model, but the TSX feels like the perfect car for me. Like you said, it's very subjective!
All Accord's have this feature too. I love it in my EX here in the 95+ degree Alabama summer!
There are obviously a lot of pluses for each car, but my biggest drawback for the TSX is the interior space; I'm 6'3", so I could use a bit more room.
Just to revise what I said originally though...the price is really only $500 b/w MSRP's but it seems you can get a bit more off in the bargaining process for the Accord, which makes it more of a price difference. Anyway, back to letting this decision eat away my brain!
Other than those minor complaints, I have not looked back since purchasing my TSX in May. The TSX/Accord both has very similar prices, features, reliability, etc The TSX is a much better styled car with a bump up in the luxury feel, handling, standard features, and basic warranty compared to the Accord IMO.
You won’t go wrong with either car. The HP numbers/cylinder count were lower on my decision matrix compared other factors (economy, luxury, styling, reliability, features, safety innovations, how much I smile behind the wheel of the car, fun-factor, etc.)
This little distinction seems to get lost on those that think the Accord has better "performance." There's more to a car than straight-line speed. TSX owners appreciate handling as much as anything. It's addictive and fun. :shades:
Want Handling? Get a TSX
Want Honda/Acura relability and want both performance and handling?
The solution get a S2000
Cheers,
MidCow
The Accord and the TSX both come as sedans and are suitable for general use, comfortable on long trips, and (especially in the case of the TSX) with some luxury features. Both cars have admirable performance aspects. IMO the Accord is more of a rider's car and the TSX is more of a driver's car.
The S2000 is _purely_ a driver's car. It provides an awesome driving experience and... almost nothing else. You can't drive it on long trips or you'll kill your back. The cockpit is strikingly bare-bones. It almost feels like a military vehicle in terms of terseness. The S2000 is not interested in making you serene and comfortable on your ride - it's all about making you feel like you're in a race car, with all the discomfort that entails.
Having said all of that, the best driving moment I've ever had was taking the S2000 through an S-curve at 60 and having it stick to the pavement like glue. But driving that car every day would quicky wear me out!
Look back the S2000 was in response to a question about handling. LOL
And the 2006 model is much improved over earlier models, more comfortable, less spartan and has stability control finally.
Cheers,
MidCow
Anyway, it's tons of fun to drive so far, and I once I get used to the clutch a bit more, it'll be even better!....my last car was a 4-cyl Accord with a 5-spd manual, so the clutch definitely acted a bit differently.
How so?
The 6 speed Accorc manual transmission car is an awesome car and it the the second best clutch I have ever driven. very good choice enjoy your car. Outstanding combination of good performance and good mileage and it uses regular gas.
Cheers,
MidCow
Of course, I would hope there would be an improvement in 11 yrs. Great cars.
The 17" wheels on the stock 04 Accord EX-L suspension seemed to have made for a much firmer ride in the Accord. Even more so than the TSX. And the 17's took out a LOT of the squirmy feel that the 16's had. The Accord, while steel feeling larger than the TSX, has a much more "tossable" feel to it. And the cruise feels a lot more locked on. The Accord begs for 80-100 mph cruises now, even more than it did previously.
I have the A-spec suspension and comptech sway bar for the TSX but haven't installed them yet since we weren't sure whether we were keeping it. I'm getting curious about the handling and aesthetic improvements though. Maybe for Christmas.
Good improvements without much penalty to ride quality, less wheel gap. The only downside I can think of is that these upgrades tend to do more to expose the weaknesses of the stock tires. Other than that, it's all good.
Without a doubt, the TSX is a fun car to run through the twisties, and every once in a while I find myself in the mood to do this. But being honest with myself, I realize that this mood is about 10% of the time. The other 90% of the time I want a comfortable and competent ride on the usual interstates and side roads I traverse every day.
Had I gone with the TSX based on the emotion of the moment, I'm sure I would have regretted the decision over time.
So my two cents is to ask yourself what is important to you the majority of the time, and then go where that answer leads you.
ejko
Have fun!
I do have one question though Do you feel you need the V-6 the majority of the time - as that is your criteria? Curious, because I doubt the diff in acceleration between the TSX and the I4 Accord is noticeable. Also the I4 Accord is less nose heavy and a little more tossable.
Of course, buying a 4-cylinder means it is going to use more of the rev range (needing to downshift earlier than the V-6 would) but I looked at it this way:
I'm using more of the car than if I'd bought the V6 - I wouldn't drive any faster with the 6-cylinder, so it would just be wasted cash and gas. I regularly make drives without going over 3,500 RPM, and that includes merging on our 75 MPH interstates. The 28-29 MPG I'm averaging in the mixed driving I do is a bonus. I got 33 MPG on that trip zipping through the hills at 80 MPH, and have gotten 40 MPG on more than one occasion on more flat areas where I kept my speed below 75 MPH, no A/C on, and was the only person in the car.
To me, that's more than worth the extra power/expense of the V6. I just don't feel the need for more power.
Shoot, since our Governor just announced a crackdown on speeding over 85, the days of "fun" GA driving are about to become more expensive...If you get caught. And Hondas sure love a nice long 100mph cruise.
V6's are great, especially Hondas, but I think I4's sometimes get a bad rap. Todays four bangers are outstanding and fun to drive (Accord and TSX; essentially the same motor).
The upside is that fours usually get better fuel economy.
I realize, for some people, the thrill of being pressed back in their seat by the engine is unmatched. Personally, I like one particular back-road in my Accord, where its handling is a hoot to drive (provided I clean out my trunk so nothing rolls around
You get the V6, VSC, and 17" alloys (compared to 16's on the EX) with the SE, but it does lack a moonroof.
$23,350 MSRP is a heck of a deal for a 3.0L Accord - I can't see many people choosing the I-4 EX over the V-6 SE.
Niceties such as:
Ambient interior console lighting
Premium interior accents (metal-look or wood trim vs. black plastic)
Heated exterior mirrors
The ability to drive a stick-shift (most people won't want this)
Things like the premium interior trim really dress up the car in my eyes. To others, a V6 is definitely worth not having a moonroof. Personally, the I-4's power is plentiful for my needs AND wants, and the mileage it delivers is a welcome bonus. Also, replacing 16" tires is cheaper than 17" tires.
I realize, none of these are big-deal items, but they are items that I particularly care about. The biggest deal for me was the moonroof though. Nothing like an open roof on a September night in Alabama!
- Cheaper price
- I assume that since the price is lower, insurance and annual plates are cheaper
- More nimble handling due to lighter front end
- Better gas mileage
- Less pollution
- Adequate power
But Stability Control has been proven to be the second most important safety feature (after seatbelts). ESC saves more lives than airbags. Granted, ESC is more important on top heavy SUVs, trucks, and vans, but statistics prove substantially fewer single car accidents occur on cars with ESC.
“NHTSA estimates that the installation of ESC will reduce single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 34 percent and single vehicle crashes of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 59 percent, with a much greater reduction of rollover crashes.”
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.012c081c5966f0ca3253ab10cba0- 46a0/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_control#Effectiveness
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/pf/autos/what_is_esc/index.htm
I find it ironic that Honda, with its heavy advertising on its safety commitment, would not offer ESC on 4 cyl Accords or Civic sedans. That’s why I’m looking at the 6 cyl Accord, TSX, and Mazda3 (higher end models).
Side airbags and ESC seem to be filtering down through the Honda line, so I expect all of their cars will have them soon. I just don’t know if my old Saturn SL2 will last long enough.
“NHTSA estimates that the installation of ESC will reduce single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars by 34 percent and single vehicle crashes of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) by 59 percent, with a much greater reduction of rollover crashes.”
It's only covering up for situations that people shouldn't have been in in the first place.
I've had ABS on my cars for years. And have never been in a situation that I needed it. I have been in situations where I activated them on purpose, but not in am emergency situation. Drive defensively and cautiously and ABS and ESC are superfluous. Especially on a car with limited sporty intentions like an Accord.