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.
Options

Honda Accord vs Acura TSX

13468913

Comments

  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    There have been quite a few posters here who cross shop the TSX and Accord Coupe. They're both sporty variants of the Accord platform. I think it is reasonable to compare the 0-60 times of the two vehicles.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Member Posts: 3,387
    Latest Motor Trend says RDX may have a 2.2L I4 Turbo with 260 hp/260 lb. ft.

    They also made sure to mention Honda has plenty of hard core R@D on Turbos from F1 racing.
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    Thanks for the information! It would be great if that engine would make it's way into the TSX as well.
  • rueshanrueshan Member Posts: 32
    Last year I purchased a 2004 Accord EX-V6 with navigation. My wife and I both love the car and we have had zero problems after 40k miles of driving. A few months ago, we needed to replace our second car, and after driving all the sedans under 30k, our best choice was the 2005 TSX, also with navigation. Even though it isn't as fast or as big as our Accord, it is a beautiful, stylish and luxurious automobile, well-engineered and a pleasure to drive. Many times I find myself trying to decide which one to drive, and normally it ends up being the TSX for around town and the Accord for longer trips. Anyone who has owned a TSX and a Civic as I have would never mention them together in a comparison, regardless of the interior specs. And unless you are into drag racing from red lights, both the TSX and the Accord have more than enough power for their purpose... which is getting you from point A to point B safely and comfortably. My wife likes the TSX better, I give a slight edge to the Accord... its not a question of a right or wrong decision, they are both great cars. I would buy either one of them again.
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    Your take on the the two cars is balancced and fair. And, I agree that they are both great cars.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    Latest Motor Trend says RDX may have a 2.2L I4 Turbo with 260 hp/260 lb. ft.

    i knew i read that some where. i thought i was going over the deep end for a while.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    ....but I personally think practical issues and economics have more to do with it than concerns regarding handling. There is no real demand for a V6 for this vehicle in Europe and Japan (where fuel prices are higher), and the JDM Accord was never built to hold a V6.

    i think i stand corrected. your reasoning seems very sound.
  • fredvhfredvh Member Posts: 857
    Thanks for your good comparison. What kind of mpg are you getting with the TSX? Is your TSX an auto trans?
  • richylrichyl Member Posts: 20
    Just did a search on BMW site, found the 525i, which cost twice as much as an Accord, has a 184HP engine with 8.2 sec 0-60. Isn't that nice for a car cost over 40k? Well, I think it's the name "sports sedan" that made people dissatisfied about the 0-60 on TSX, otherwise it would be fine.
  • rueshanrueshan Member Posts: 32
    According to the Nav system, the 2005 TSX automatic is averaging 23 mpg on 100% city driving. The Accord, by the same measure, gets 26 mpg with about a 50/50 mix of city/highway driving with a slightly heavy foot. I haven't had time to take manual mpg measurements on either car, but I run Mobil 1 and use the K&N drop-in air filters on both engines if that makes any difference.
  • indydriverindydriver Member Posts: 620
    Last time I checked F1 was NA.

    Honda did run turbos at Indy (pre-IRL) and CART.

    Honda doesn't really need turbos. Their history is flush with cutting edge NA designs originating from their motorcycle origins. I still have an '83 Interceptor, a technological tour de force with a water cooled, V-4, yes V-4 that put out 100 hp/liter in 1983! I've always wondered why they never put this configuration in a small, light sports car (the S2000 would be perfect). At 2.4l, this would equate to 240hp without forced induction.
  • combustible1combustible1 Member Posts: 264
    I find myself in a state of constant bemusement when reading comments by the people on car forums, such as this one, who are sooo concerned about that last nth degree of acceleration.

    I drive an old '92 4cyl auto Camry. 130 horsepower. I would say it allows me to accelerate as quickly as I need to in 85-90% of around town traffic situations, and maybe 80% of highway situations. I may have to floor it on occasion to achieve those percentages, but that's the exemption, not the rule.

    I rented an '04 4cyl auto Mazda 6 for a few days recently, and that car made me look around for the cops! More than enough power with that 160 horsepower engine, even with an auto tranny. As much acceleration as I would ever need in 95% of city driving and 90% in highway driving.

    Now, these people who are making a big deal of the difference between the times of the V6 Accord vs. the 4cyl TSX? I look at them the same way I look at people with Christmas tree lights still up in August.. strange breeds! :P

    Frankly, you are probably the kind of people I wouldn't want to be driving near, as you are more likely to be someone who is looking to accelerate out of the tightest of spaces with the smallest margins for error, weaving in and out of traffic to gain every possible advantage.

    For 90%+ of the population, the TSX has more than enough "get up and go!" To me, engine power should be towards the bottom of the list when it comes to consideration factors between the two models.

    exemptions to the above rant:

    ~ people in mountain states w/ drastic elevation changes.
    ~ people who have to blast the AC most of the time.
    ~ people who often carry very heavy loads.
    ~ people who spend a lot of time at the autocross.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    at the top of my list then as follows in descending order:

    6-speed manual quality important
    performance
    miles per gallon
    Car cost
    Depreciation cost
    Insurance cost
    Ability to use regular gas
    Security and remote door lock/unlock
    Trip Computer
    Safety Air bags: front, side, side curtain
    Tires and maintenance cost
    Sporty driving feel
    Good stereo
    Moonroof
    Roof Rack that could carry two Kayaks or two bicycles
    Good Trunk space
    NAV system
    Ability to carry at least three people
    Handling
    Braking: ABS, EBD,
    Autoclimate control
    New Formula Red or Milano Red color; second choice black
    Xexon lights
    Heated Mirrors
    DRL
    TCS
    VCS
    Front wheel drive

    ================
    And my choice was a 2005 Black Honda Accord Coupe 6-speed with NAV

    Someone that is driving a 13 year car maybe is not on the same car enthusiast level that I am. Although I still have a car the is almost that old, a 5-speed Lexus ES300 that still has better fetures than most cars available today, such as a setero that blows away the Mazda3 and Nissan Altima line, heated mirror, autoclimate control, quiet-still no squeaks, sporty handling, crisp acceleration with a 5-speed and only a 185 hp 3.0 L V6.

    Again, acceleration and horsepower are important to the car buying public. If it wasn't so than why do all car vendors keep increasing the horsepower.,. Even the Avalon has go to a dual exhaust 280 Hp car that now is stating their 0-60 mph time as 6.6 seconds.

    I guess maybe I am just an old manual shift fart from the muscle car era that still likes performance and manual shift. My first car out of college was a 1970 Oldsmobile 442 4-speed manual shift.

    So bottom line, I drove a TSX 6-speed and a 5-speed automatic and thought it was two slow. I used to have a 1995 Acura GSR and looked at the RSX-S but I didn't like the red colored gauges. The Acura contender I was seriously looking at as a 6-speed TL w/NAV but I couldn't in my own mind justify spending almost $8,000 more at a significantly higher finance rate.

    Okay for the final test, including this occurrence how many times did I mention performance. By the way did I mention that the performance of the TSX is pretty limp.

    Good Day,

    MidCow
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    "Midcow" - I think the Accord Coupe V6 was a fine choice for you given your priorities. Having driven Accords for 15 years, I feel confident that you'll be happy with your choice and have a very reliable car that will serve you well. I also think that, in terms of value (what you get for your money), the Accord can't be matched by ANY vehicle in ANY price range that is available right now.

    That said, I frankly find the comment that the performance of the TSX is "limp" to be rather ridiculous (not trying to insult you personally -just taking issue with that one particular comment). I have 25,000 miles on mine, and if anything, if feels pretty lively around town. I think that is a particularly silly statement if you are talking about the 6MT version of the TSX (which is fairly quick).
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    UncleDavid,

    Maybe a better word would be isolated or sophisticated. It felt more like my Lexus IS300 isolated, disconnected and not as sporty feeling.

    Yes, the TSX is a fine car, also. I apologize for any offense. But contrary to what poster #271 said, it is not ridiculous to consider acceleration.

    Then there is the Borla Cat-Back addition :)

    Cheers,

    MidCow
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    MidCow - this is your car. I think ANYTHING that is important to you personally is what matters and nobody has the right to say otherwise. So, if acceleration is a major issue to you, I think it makes pefect sense to opt for a V6 Accord over a 4-cyl TSX. If raw power is a high priority, a TSX is not a good option. That is why I commented that you had made a good choice, based on your own priorities. Besides, based on what I've read of your posts over the year, I recognize that you are an enthusiast who knows his vehicles well. So, I'm sure your choice was an informed one.

    That said, if you felt the TSX was "isolated", I wonder a bit about why you opted for a softer sprung kind of vehicle. I've owned Accord Coupes for years. I loved both of the coupes I had and but a ton of miles on them. But, those cars were not in the least sporty in day-to-day driving. The Accord Coupe is a lot more like a Camry than it is a IS300 (unless, of course, you plan to make some mods).
  • evpedevped Member Posts: 39
    I am thinking about trading my 03 Accord EX (5 speed) for a new 6 speed TSX. My concerns are mpg and using premium fuel. I would like something a little smaller and sportier. My Accord is great and averages between 32-34 mpg (mostly highway). Is the difference between the two cars worth the 10 grand it will cost to switch to the TSX or should I wait for the new Civic to come out? Any educated opinion would be welcomed. Thanks.
  • clint98v6atclint98v6at Member Posts: 54
    While F1 has been normally-aspirated for a while, turbos were allowed from 77-88. Nelson Piquet won the F1 title in 87 with Williams/Honda and Ayrton Senna won the title in 88 with McLaren/Honda. Both were turbo engines.

    Honda was getting 120hp/liter from the NA 2.0L inline 4 cyl. in the S2000 from 00-03 (bumped to 2.2L in 04). While not a V configuration, it's still very high hp/liter for a NA engine.
  • lmacmillmacmil Member Posts: 1,758
    "I am thinking about trading my 03 Accord EX (5 speed) for a new 6 speed TSX."

    Here's my $.02, having driven neither but having read all the road tests and this forum comments. Yes the TSX is smaller & sportier. You can use regular fuel with a slight drop in performance (per the brochure). You're going to take a pretty big hit on the '03 because obviously depreciation is biggest in the 1st two years.

    Is it worth $10,000? Only you can make that judgement. It wouldn't be for me. I would enjoy the Accord for a couple more years then go for used 2005 TSX.
  • indydriverindydriver Member Posts: 620
    Perfect choice given that styling doesn't make your top 28 priorities! ;-)
  • indydriverindydriver Member Posts: 620
    Go for the TSX. You'll be thrilled with it. You can get 30+ on the hwy with moderate driving and the premium fuel will only cost you $200 per year. Get a Shell Mastercard and save 5% with every purchase and it will only cost you $100 per year. Do you think you're worth it?
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Member Posts: 3,387
    Thanks Clint for clarifying. Guess I won't have to post that link now.
  • evpedevped Member Posts: 39
    Thanks for the advice lmacmil & indydriver. Anyone else feel free to chime in.
  • johnny420johnny420 Member Posts: 473
    evped,

    Indy is right. As a TSX owner for about 14 months now, I can attest to the car's qualities. Accords are fine autos (I had one before the TSX), but the fun-to-drive factor is way higher with the Acura, uninformed opinions on this board to the contrary.

    The Accord is downright boring by comparison.

    I love the car now more than when I bought it.

    If sharp handling and a sporty nature are priorities for you, the TSX is a fine choice.

    Good luck with the decision.

    Johnny
  • lmacmillmacmil Member Posts: 1,758
    How does the ride compare? CR and Uncledavid say the ride is quite firm. I haven't driven the two back to back or over the same route so I really couldn't make a judgement. Coming from a very nice riding car now, I don't want something that would be considered harsh.
  • indydriverindydriver Member Posts: 620
    Pretty tough for anyone other than you to make that judgment for you. I love a firm, well damped suspension and, based on my test drives to date, the TSX fills the bill just right. I suppose any car that fits this description could be put in some circumstances where it would be considered "harsh" compared to your typical GM sedan, but, any suspension setting is going to be a trade off. To get premium handling, you have to give up some suspension and body motion that insulates you from the road. Again, only you can judge what works for you. So, test drive, test drive, test drive. As you see from this discussion, the TSX, while loved, is not for everyone.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    I have had many cars before including a IS300 (5-speed), M3(5-speed), GSR (5-speed)and I feel I am well informed.

    The 6-speed Accord Coupe is sporty and has a lot more power and response than the TSX. A closer comparison is the TL, but I couldn't justify spending about $8,000 more.

    Not that the TSX is a bad car, it is just that the Accord Coupe fit my needs and style much better!

    YOMV,

    MidCow
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    lcmacil - I've owned two Accord Coupes, and now a TSX. IMO, the Accords had a much nicer ride (and note that the present version of the Accord rides a bit better than the ones I had in the past). The TSX is stiff, doens't handle bumps well, and seems a bit nervous on wavey freeway pavement. I now have 25,000 miles on my TSX and can honestly say that the ride is not an issue for me. I'm satisfied - but I have no illusions about it being a smooth ride.

    indydriver - it is possible for a ride to be firm and "well damped" without being stiff - drive a G35 or a BMW 3-series for examples. Honda has never been good at handling/ride compromises. The Accord rides well, but does not offer responsive handling. The TSX handles well, but has a stiff ride.

    johnny420 - I agree that the TSX is a very fun car. I just don't think that the folk on this forum who don't agree aren't informed. They're informed - they just have a different opinion than we do.

    midnightcowbody- The acceleration on the Accord Coupe is competitive with the TL, and it is far faster than the TSX. But, the handling doens't compare to either vehicle. The Accord is a lot more like a Camry or Altima than it is a TL or TSX (again, assuming you have made no mods). I'm not sure that I'd agree that the Accord Coupe is "sporty" since it is essentially a coupe version of a family car.
  • venus537venus537 Member Posts: 1,443
    the suspension settings are different for the coupe. i actually prefer the ride/handling of the coupe over the sedan. i may be crazy but i feel the coupe rides AND handles better than the sedan. for some reason i thought i wanted a sedan though.

    my friend has an accord coupe (V6 auto just like mine) so i have a fair amount of road time on the car (as a passenger of course). also, the seats are more to my liking too. tell me again why i got the sedan??? i guess i wanted to blend into the crowd more.

    the V6 manual accord coupe has further adjustments to the suspension i believe. still not as agile as the TSX but more on par with the TL.
  • johnny420johnny420 Member Posts: 473
    Uncledavid,

    I have no quibble with folks who have made a concerted effort to go out and test drive a car, more than once, more than twice, and who have then come to the conclusion that a particular cars merits do not suit their needs. That is an individual who is speaking from at least a small positon of knowledge.

    My problem is with those who sit at a computer with a sheet of paper in front of them, or an auto mag with a given vehicles performance statistics, and make all manner of proclamations about a particular vehicles attributes, WITHOUT having put in extensive time behind the wheel.

    Comments like "the TSX is not a BAD car" strike me as being "uniformed," for lack of a better term, because I know that extensive time behind the wheel of a TSX more than likely will lead one to conclude that it is a fine drivers car. At least for someone who values the qualities that make a car an enthusiasts car.

    It's all about balance with the TSX. Not overwhleming horsepower or flashy styling, but synergy, the harmonious workings of all the cars many parts to form a complete driving machine, and experience.

    I've learned more about performance driving in the last 14 months than all the years previous. IMO, anybody can gas it from stoplight to stoplight, it's the twisties where the fun and skill comes in to play.

    Sorry for the ramble. I realize I'm preaching to the choir a bit here, but I'm pretty passionate about this car, and driving in general. I just needed to make my position clear.

    Uncledavid, I've enjoyed reading all of your posts, and those of other car enthusiasts, over the last couple of years. I hope we can continue the dialogue.

    Johnny

    PS Midcow, enjoy your Accord Coupe. It's a great car. I only hope you got the 6 speed :-). Please, just don't dis the TSX. It, too, is a great car. They're just different.
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    The coupe doens't ride or handle much differently than the sedan. The suspension is a LITTLE stiffer. I drove the coupe about 10 times, and owned two of them. I never felt any different whatsoever between the coupe and sedan, although the tires are better on the coupe. The handling is very good for that type of car, but their is a lot of understeer and tire grip is not great.

    That said, I never drove the manual version of the coupe. So, that version of the vehicle might handle better. Either way, I doubt that it can reasonably be conceputalized as "sporty." It is basically the two-door version of a soft riding family car. It probably won't match the handling of the TL, let alone be competitive with the TSX.
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    I was specifically trying to defend MidCow. He and I never agree on ANYTHING. But, I've never found him to be anything but informed and thoughtful. Just had to defend a poster I respect!

    That said, I understand what you are saying and think you make good points.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Johnny 420,

    Yes "Not overwhleming horsepower and requiring premium gas are my only complaints about the TSX. Otherwise, I would have bought it instead of the Accord. Sorry to come accross as dissing The TSX. Either the Accord or TSX are much much better than most other cars avaialble.

    I just put a Borla cat back exhaust, K & N high flow air filter, Sylvania Super Star headlights and Zainoed the black into a deep wet look. Life is good!

    Johnny420 hope you are enjoying your TSX. Do you have the 6-speed ? You also have a great car!

    Thanks,

    MidCow
  • johnny420johnny420 Member Posts: 473
    Yup, 6 MT, non-nav. I personally wouldn't have the TSX without the MT.

    Sounds like you've made some nice mods to your Coupe. That V6 is definitely sweet.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Johhny420,

    Alrighty , another manual transmission person! Manual transmission is the only way to go! Honda/Acura makes the smoothest shifting transmissions!

    YMMV,

    MidCow
  • 2tall2tall Member Posts: 4
    You do know that the TSX is a re-badged Accord that is sold in Europe and Japan, except the Diesel engine is not an option and that is a shame. You're getting a much tighter suspension, a slick 6 speed, plus 5 additional lb/ft of torque over the Accord's 4 cylinder. The downside: it burns high test gas while getting poorer mileage and about the same performance if you're not flogging it.

    If I could get it with the Diesel engine there would be one in my driveway now. CB
  • dudleyrdudleyr Member Posts: 3,469
    "If I could get it with the Diesel engine there would be one in my driveway now."

    Ditto.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    The wagon is a shame. I'd love a TSX wagon, although the limited low-end torque would really be a problem in that type of vehicle.
  • rasa1rasa1 Member Posts: 1
    I am currently trying to choose between an accord EX (4 cyl manual = frugality) and the obviously more fun (but still frugal) TSX.

    Does the TSX absolutely require premium and is there a loss of performance or mpg if you don't?
    Is the 22 city 30 highway mileage bear out in people's experience
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    Get the Accord v-6 Coupe with 6-speed manual rated at 20 city and 30 highway. I am currently getting 24.6 driving mostly high speed highway. However, car is not broken in yet so I expect it to improve. The overall frugality expressed by most is that the Honda I4 only gets about 10% better mileage than the V6. From what I have heard most TSX users don't get the posted EPA numbers; but, then they are having fun driving their TSXs sporty

    Good luck. They are all great choices. Honda/Acura makes a very fine manual shifter.

    Good Luck,

    MidCow
  • nowakj66nowakj66 Member Posts: 709
    I am considering a switch from an Accord EX-L sedan 5 speed to a TSX auto for spousal compatability. My Accord is very clean and the dealer offered me $15,000 (with 14,500 miles). My father is also interested in the car for about $16k.

    As for price, locally I can get a TSX 05 non-nav are $26.2k. For a v6 Accord non-NAV - 24.2k.

    The TL is another choice but is $5 or $6k more and drives a little heavier than either the TSX or Accord.

    I love the stick but my wife and I now have a new son so a car we can both drive would be good. This is not a mandatory trade by any stretch BUT might be a nice opportunity to help my dad and get a more flexible car for the family.

    I love my i4 Accord but am intrigued by the TSX.

    Interior space is best on the Accord. Interior finish is best in the TL. The TSX has the smallest interior, especially in the back seat.

    I do appreciate handling more than power. I used to drive a 92 5 speed Prelude which I really liked. But domestic considerations such as auto tranny and interior room are now of greater importance than in the past.

    Any thoughts would be appreciated.
  • lmacmillmacmil Member Posts: 1,758
    "Any thoughts would be appreciated."

    Do what makes your better half happy!
  • nowakj66nowakj66 Member Posts: 709
    Well lets just say my spouse is reluctant to change our car situation in any way.

    When I briefly became intrigued with the Honda Ridgeline truck I would not have been surprised if her response would have been - "That's great! That truck will come in handy - especially when you MOVE OUT of the house!" :-) Actually she never said that, though I attribute the quote to her since it makes for a better story.

    Lets just say driving the Accord till the wheels fall off would be more her speed. It is true that we do not share a love for cars!

    So to make the better half happy I would refrain and abstain from car purchases for a longer period than I would independently.
  • rl81rl81 Member Posts: 53
    Driving a car until the wheels fall off is very common. Indeed it is cheaper that way. But also think about the hassle at the and of the life of a car, when you have problem after problem...

    depends on what you want:
    having a new car every couple of years, and always driving a good car
    or
    saving money on transportation, including more frequent repairs and overall more problems once the car gets older
  • nowakj66nowakj66 Member Posts: 709
    True enough. Though I must admit, the problematic stage of my 2003 Accord is probably another 8 plus years off, if my 1992 Prelude is any indication.

    For me, I drive so few miles, it is always age of car that spells the end for my rides. I do all the scheduled maintenance and keep them clean and it tip top shape.

    With the 1992 Prelude, it only had 70,000 miles when I sold it in 2002. It ran great and was rust free at the end. There were some failures in switch gear (AC activation switch) and some plastic part failures (like screw cap covers in the door handles).

    Of course I am forgetting to mention that the timing belt broke and slagged the head at 60,000 miles, though American Honda paid for half of the repair. Maybe I am proving your point rl81!

    I admit I am borderline "chronic car buyer anonymous" material. I think about it ALL the time but pull the trigger every 3 years or so.
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Member Posts: 1,978
    ...I talked my wife into buying a used Audi LS100 5-speed manual shift. She didn't know how to drive a manual shift. The Audi was an interesting car 5-cylinder, lots of trunk space, and the best traction I have ever see (I once went up a steep snow ocvered hill when other cars were all pulling off to the side). However, every Audi mechanic and service advisor knew me by my first name and greeted me often.

    Anyway, we got married and are still married many, many years later. And she can drive a standard very well, even though she prefers her Avalon.

    Bottom line: Keep the manual tranmission Accord I4 5-speed or pull-the-trigger a get a 6-speed TSX and gently teach your wife how to drive a manual shift car

    YMMV,

    MidCow -The Manual Shift Man
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    LOL. I love your posts and your overall attitude. You are at true enthusiast.
  • uncledaviduncledavid Member Posts: 548
    I've run my TSX with regular a few times (I have a 5AT, btw). It ran fine. No knocking or pinging. I didn't lose much in terms of MPG. But, I did have the general sense that the car was not as responsive.
  • indydriverindydriver Member Posts: 620
    I have test driven (but do not own) all three of the vehicles you mention. Having grown up on MTs, then being forced into ATs, I think I can tell you with some certainty that if you love your MT Accord, you will be disappointed going to an AT TSX. The added horsepower is diluted by the auto and its taller gearing. If you have to buy a new car and have to go AT (i.e., your wife has to drive it too), you will probably be better off going with the Accord V-6.
This discussion has been closed.