Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Accord vs Acura TSX



  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    Sat in one of these puppies while having my Civic's oil changed last week and eventhough the leather was really comfortable and the ergonomics were outstanding, the thought of premium fuel would steer me too the Accord. A 7/8's TSX, the Accord is probably the wisest choice for you. Probably cheaper to buy the Accord also which makes it the logical & practical choice to this guy.
    And personally, the TSX is my favorite car out there at this point. The extra price for premium is a deal killer for me though with the price of oil continuing it's upward trend.

    The Sandman :)
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    If you drive 15,000 miles/year and average 25 MPG, premium gas will cost $120/year more than regular. Is that really a deal breaker?

    Or you could simply run the TSX on regular fuel.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The recent inquiring mind about these two cars will drive over 80 miles a day to work, so the difference will be more than that.
  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    I just like the car and I'm lucky enough that I don't even drive 7.5k miles a year. The guy who posed the question just added 80 miles a day to his commute...ouch! In my case, the $ amount isn't that bad actually. But I'm very happy with the mpg's my Civic delivers though it's not as powerful or smooth riding as our Mazda 3s. The difference between the 1.8 and the 2.3 engines is definitely noticeable especially when driving around a corner and then giving the engine gas. Noticeable hesitation in the Civic but seemless power with the 3. Got spoiled last week when I had the 3 as my daily driver.
    Saw a nice Wolfsburg Edition Jetta earlier at the VW stire and it's a sweet looking ride...the charcol color was very striking in the sunlight. The car looked newly detailed and I was in love for a short time until reality brought me back down to earth.
    Man, just love some of the new cars out there. Too bad my wallet can't keep up with my desires. If I win the lottery out!

    The Sandman :)
  • loi177loi177 Posts: 10
    TSX will give you more useable back seat thatn V6 accord coupe and it is generally better looking. Accord V6 generally comes with 16 inch wheels. and you have to spend money on timing belt that will nullify the cost difference in fuel. Go with TSX it has all the power when you revive the engine.
  • jfooljfool Posts: 15
    Nice sales pitch :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Go with TSX it has all the power when you revive the engine.

    If the engine has to be revived you might want to try a different one. :)

    The TSX accelerates similarly to a 4-cylinder Accord. Not that that is a bad thing, but if I'm getting V6 economy, I want V6 torque and power. Me? I drive a 4-cylinder Accord; it gets better mileage than the TSX, and on regular.

    If you like the TSX and how it accelerates, I'd try a 4-cylinder Accord as well; you'll save money upfront and on fuel.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    To me, Acura cars are for people who value "Entry Luxury" amenities, or the looks of Acura cars. Other than those two points, a Honda is a better deal.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I'd say its close to a tie on styling (in my eyes) between the '04 Accord Coupe and '04 TSX, although the nod probably goes to the TSX in the end. The Coupe looks sportier, but the TSX has a cohesive, elegant style that the Accord doesn't; the Accord being a coupe gives it some help, but doesn't win out overall, to me.


  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    The Accord coupe looks bloated next to the TSX actually. The '04 I saw at the Honda store last week was a black/black car and was realllllly nice, leather felt real soft though neglected a bit. If the wife wouldn't have killed me it would be in my side of the garage right now. But the frugal side of me brought me back to reality real fast as I'm real happy with my '06 Civic. But just for awhile that TSX would've been fun.
    Better to save the $ for the kids cars later this year. Have set aside about $30k for that big purchase, as they will both need econocars as their 1st cars especially with the gas prices rising almost daily.

    The Sandman :)
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    I would rank the Accord between the two Acuras. TSX below, and the TL above the Accord. I would consider the TSX above the Civic though. Isn't that how they are priced? Acura doesn't have the RSX for sale here (US) anymore, does it?
  • packer3packer3 Posts: 277
    My neighbor has the TSX he started with the prem. switched over to reg. when the prices went up, he puts regular in it now and he said there is not much of a difference in performance or mileage. The knock sensors will take care of the rest.
  • loi177loi177 Posts: 10
    TSX has 200hp engine with better aerodynamics drag of 0.26. how is 4 cylinder accord with 160hp can match it. Accord lacks the quality of 3 stage paint of TSX. A nice 04 in CPO TSX is far better than 04 Accord.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    how is 4 cylinder accord with 160hp can match it.

    Incidentally, if we use C&D as a measuring stick (using numbers from one source helps minimize launch differences), the 2004 TSX with a stick-shift accelerated from 0-60 in 7.2-7.5 seconds, depending on which test you prefer to go by. Car and Driver measured a 2007 2.4L Accord with a stick shift doing the 0-60 in 7.2 seconds. I use the 2006-2007 Accords for my measuring stick because that's what I drive, and that's what I have compared firsthand. Thus, I stand behind my initial statement.

    What the TSX does not have is more usable torque than the 4-cyl Accord. Around town, they feel similar. With an automatic, especially. When driving as normal folks do, I could tell little difference between a 2004 TSX Auto and my 2006 Accord Auto (166hp). Horsepower and torque peaks come higher-in the RPM range, meaning while you have to rev the sweet 2.4 to get the power, it isn't as readily available back below the stratusphere where most people drive (below 6,000 RPM). Here's a quote from Car and Driver's Road Test of the 2004 Acura TSX.

    the TSX mill doesn't deliver much grunt below 3000 rpm, but as the tachometer creeps toward peak torque, the engine pulls strongly to 6000 rpm, at which point the cam profiles go long for the 1100-rpm sprint to the redline.

    The TSX is heavier for a smaller car as well, actually weighing a little more than the last 4-cylinder Automatic Accord (Gen VII, which we have been talking about here) tested in Car and Driver.

    Accord lacks the quality of 3 stage paint of TSX.

    Nobody mentioned paint, but ok. :)
  • loi177loi177 Posts: 10
    so how is navigation system in 04 Accord. does it have HID lights, climate control, traction control, power seat, NVH levels, etc. how is performance 0-100 mile? lateral accelaration.60mph is too short to judge perofrmance. TSX shape will endure for long time. i can drive at 90mph at 3000rpm with 5AT and still get 28mpg on 06 TSX. TSX is heavier car but once it gets upto speed. it is very refined crusier.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The V6 Accord has more of everything I want, than the TSX (for about the same price). I have no affection for HID lights, have climate control, traction control, two power seats, more interior room, and will get from 50-90mph faster than the TSX. I will admit the TSX looks a little better than the Accord, but then the TL makes them both look bad. I didn't buy my car to make a fashion statement.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731

    so how is navigation system in 04 Accord. does it have HID lights

    Navi system? Its optional, just like the TSX. It's quite nice, and voice activated. The dual-climate control is nice in models so-equipped, as is the smoother ride. Nope, doesn't have HIDs, but the 4-cyl model doesn't cost $29k new, either, as does a TSX.

    I don't drive sustained at 90 MPH all day long (something about wanting to keep my drivers license... ;)), so 0-60 is plenty of measure for me for knowing how a car is going to do from the red light at the bottom of the on-ramp up to the merging lane. If 0-100 is important to you, you should really look at a V6; it'll blow the doors off of mine and your Honda 2.4L engine. Not sure where traffic moves that fast though.

    I never knocked the TSX features (which ought to be better than the Accord since it costs as much as a loaded V6 Accord when new), but I still stand by my claim that my 4-cyl Accord is just as fast as the TSX. They aren't drag racers, they are family cars. It's not a big deal buddy. Actually, that was my only statement, which seems to have brought on the defensive. It wasn't my objective.

    TSX is heavier car but once it gets upto speed. it is very refined crusier.

    As is the Accord; the nicer ride (a lil less sporty than the TSX) makes my regular 300 mile highway trips a nice one. My car doesn't see track duty, so the balance of comfort and sport works for me.
  • loi177loi177 Posts: 10
    we are only comparing 04 accord to 04 TSX. not $29,000 new car. A older TSX is much better than older Accord. TSX age gracefully due to better quality paint. And it has all the features standard and much better fuel economy at higher speeds. i dont know about 04 accord coupe price but 04 TSX can be had from $14 to $18K.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If you're talking about 4-cylinder Accords versus a TSX, then you are wrong on the fuel economy part, unless you can pull more than 40 MPG at 70 MPH.

    And, if the 04 TSX costs more upfront, it will cost more used as well, unless the resale value isn't as good as the Accord's is. Which is it?

    I heard ya the first time about the paint, although my 1996 Accord looks great after a life outside over 180k miles. I doubt most people keep their cars that long (I still have mine and drive it reguarly), but if they do, their Accord will be looking just fine.

    More standard features, more $.
  • bug4bug4 Posts: 370
    B fun to have a forum about speeds. Highest cruising speeds I've ever encountered are just after a Rockies or Avalanche game, going north on I-25 at 11:30p.m. from Denver to Cheyenne, WY (90 miles). I've traveled in the 95-100mph pack and been passed up by the 110mph pack. Its fun! And, they can't give us all tickets :P . . . . . or can they :confuse:
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The last test I saw of the 4-cyl Accord had the top speed listed as 130mph, limited electronically (it's tires are only rated to that speed).

    As for me, once or twice a year over 90 MPH is plenty.
  • loi177loi177 Posts: 10
    u cannot maintain 70mph constant where i live. some time u have to go below 60mph and some time acclerate to 90mph. TSX excess power and aerodymanics allow it and still manage to get over 28mpg. A/C does not have effect. TSX cost more upfront has longer warranty, better dealer service with loaner cars and complimentary car wash etc. 4 cylinder accord is too big for parking and less grip on moving on curves.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    A/C does not have effect.

    Yes, it does.

    some time u have to go below 60mph and some time acclerate to 90mph. TSX excess power and aerodymanics allow it and still manage to get over 28mpg.

    Which the Accord can do just fine, and get better mileage in the process.
  • exfhp50exfhp50 Posts: 8
    To me it seems like the TSX doesn't hold it value as well as the Accords have. I'm not sure how much a TSX was in '04. Compare that price to what an EX V6 6 speed Accord coupe was in '04. Now, at least where I'm at, they are price in the same ballpark range 13-16k. I may consider a 4 cyl Accord coupe but I will have to drive one to see.

    As far as backseat space is concerned, I don't have any kids yet so no big deal. I'm looking for that balance of performance and mpg and 28 won't cut it. I drive a bunch so it needs to last as well. Oh if forgot to mention, we are moving this weekend so I now have a 110 mi commute.

    Thanks for all the info, keep it coming.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Oh if forgot to mention, we are moving this weekend so I now have a 110 mi commute.

    Ooooo, you may want to think about a Civic Hybrid (or other Hybrid) for that drive. With that kind of commute, and the price of gas now, it could pay for itself in no time.
  • loi177loi177 Posts: 10
    market price of 04 TSX with navigation in 04 was around $26K. and good conditions can still be fetched from $16 to $18K. so hardly it loses value after 4 years. and if you are driving long trip like 110 it will get around 32 to 34 mpg depeding on speed between 60 to 80mph. my overall average is 28mpg but commute is way shorter. even in SF hills with A/C i still managed 23mpg in the city. and there is no timing belt replacement at 90 to 100k miles like six cylinder accord which you will need in case of 04 model. so older TSX is better than older 04 accord. I doubt you can get similar mpg with older sixcylinder engine.
  • exfhp50exfhp50 Posts: 8
    Sounds reasonable, but from what I have been reading either car could get 32 - 34 mpg. I can't remember if I mentioned but I'm in Florida so not many hills to contend with (at least none larger than overpasses). Also, what's the deal with the timing belt in the Accord?
  • tallman1tallman1 Posts: 1,874
    Also, what's the deal with the timing belt in the Accord?

    For the last several years, the I-4s don't have them but the V6s do. Is that what you wanted to know?
  • exfhp50exfhp50 Posts: 8
    So does that mean the V6 has a timing belt and the I4 has a timing chain and that there is a problem with the belt in the V6? I keep hearing about how important it is to change the timing belt in the V6 every 100k.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    The I4 has a chain, and the V6 has a timing belt. Belts get worn over 100k miles, and should be changed. I think the reason the V6 has a belt, instead of a chain, is because a belt would have to be long, and heavy due to the engine configuration, and probably be noisier. Did you ever notice how quiet the V6 engines are? I think at least part of that is due to the belt.
This discussion has been closed.