Wonder if I could get a deal on a leftover Mazdaspeed Protege? DId they end up selling well, or were they a dog? If it just has a moonroof...
The Rolla was less "edgy" than the competitors, so you are correct that the Civic just needs a HP boost, and some sport cues to compete. Hey, sounds like the engine/suspension/seats from the Si!
FWIW, we love our Si. 24,000 miles and no problems whatsoever. It's just the right combo of performance within reason and reliability. It also gets decent MPG considering it revs at 4000 at 80 and has a set of 17" wheels.
I hope with the next Civic Honda goes back to a newer version of the 92-95 version. They need to grace it with 4-wheel disc brakes, side curtains, and ABS as standard equipment.
There's more I want to say but I am so tired at this point my brain has lost capability to translate even the simplest of thoughts into a coherent post.......
Civic Si is just 10 HP down at peak from XRS, BTW. The XRS engine mimics the old Integra GS-R 1.8-liter engine that was rated 170 HP/128 lb.-ft, both peaks arriving at high rpm (as is to be expected).
With the new Si, Honda obviously went for lower (from the factory) output than is possible out of the K20A but with more grunt (since 111 lb.-ft that old Si delivered at high rpm was seen as a negative by many). The old Si engine carried a 1.6 however.
Hopefully, next time around Honda will give the Si the best of both worlds, now that it should be using K20. ~140 lb.-ft at in low-mid range and about 200 HP at the top end.
Hopefully, that would be the next RSX (and/or Canadian market EL). This would leave K20 for exclusive use in the Civic lineup (in the USA anyway).
With 2900 lb curb weight, 200-210 HP/~170 lb.-ft and 7100 rpm redline, RSX would have replaced Prelude however! But, a better idea might be to throw in SH-AWD, try to keep under 3000 lb and go for the TSX-tune K24 in the RSX. This would allow RSX to compete well in $25-27K price range.
With Integra and Prelude around, I used to think that Prelude should have had been the Acura. It felt more refined. RSX ended up moving a little in that direction, and while it is a nice little car, it still needs a bit of greater differentiation from Civic, primarily to allow Civic to grow.
As far as Acura marketing, RSX deserves its place, but as a coupe alternative to TSX and to appeal to a younger buyer (coupe buyers are typically younger than sedan buyers anyway) who care for more sport, style and not as much for comfort. With TSX positioned to compete in $27-29K price range, use of K24A, more refinement, and addition of SH-AWD could still allow for a well equipped RSX at $25-27K.
If this happens, RSX would have covered the ground earlier served by Prelude SH and then some. Use of K24 would also allow Acura to mate automatic transmission to a 200-210 HP RSX creating an appeal for those who don’t favor 6-speed manual transmission while providing an option to those who do.
Ideal lineup for Acura: RSX (25-27K), TSX (27-30K), TL (33-40K), CL ($40-45K), RL (~50K). NSX needs to stick around as well, but not without a redesign.
There's no doubt the Si is a good vehicle. It's sporty, practical, and more refined (relatively speaking) than most of the competition. Trouble is, not many of those virtues are held in high regard by the crowd who are supposed to buy them. It makes a great car for some, but it misses the marketing... er... mark.
No TSX/Accord coupe in the UK. Would love to see one though. Unlike Robertsmx, I'd be happier if they shaved weight by removing the rear doors, glass, reducing the wheelbase, and leave it without SH-AWD. That AWD system would add something like 220 lbs. The TSX 2.4 in a coupe weighing under 3,000 lbs would be quite the little darling.
but there's no need to shorten it...just leave it on the current wheelbase, as the car's stubby enough already. Besides, go any smaller, and you end up with a glorified Civic!
The TSX 2.4 in a coupe weighing under 3,000 lbs would be quite the little darling.
That would be the RSX I have been talking about! Acura should make a move in that direction. Continuation of compact platform should be possible (to save weight AND cost).
Well, I suggest the shorter w-base as a way to reduce weight. It would be a replacement for the RSX (call it whatever you want).
I don't think it would be a glorified Civic. The size would be comparable, but the underpinnings are different. Note, I have nothing against the strut set-up, but the TSX sports the double bones everyone clamors for. Based on the racing use of the TSX, I think the chassis has more upward performance potential than the Civic.
Are you serious? 40-45 for a CL? What does this CL have, that makes it 10 grand more than the TL? The Infiniti G35X and BMW 330xi don't even charge that much of a premium for AWD over their RWD brothers. Heck, the UltraLux package on the Lexus LS430 is only 12 grand. And I'm sure the CL won't be upstaging the RL right? (Though given how long the TL has upstaged the RL, it wouldn't surprise me)
I left the wheelbase the same, and even the height of the car is the same. I did move the C-pillar forward a bit though, and made it a bit more rakish. Gives it a longer decklid, which I think makes it look lower even though it isn't. Atlhough I've never been inside a TSX, so I have no idea what I just did to it would do to headroom! But hey, it's a coupe! ;-)
The CL I suggested is a coupe form “between” TL and RL, and using features from both. It could use styling from TL and most of the features including drive train and SH-AWD from the RL. This in-between model could use in-between price tag. Oh, $45K price tag expected a convertible also (hence the largish price differential). In case of BMW 3-series, the base price for 330Ci is $45K, i.e. before you start adding options.
TL doesn’t compete with RL, not any more! For a long time (1992-1998), Vigor/TL used to be an also ran. The Legend, however, did its job until the docile 1996 RL. There is no doubt that TL w/SH-AWD would be cheaper than RL, and match it on the spec sheet. But to understand the subtle differences, we would have to wake up the little connoisseur in all of us.
As for the AWD premium, none of us know how much SH-AWD will cost as an option (we should see when it is offered in TL), but not unlike other “advanced” AWD systems, I expect it to cost $2-3K (as much as Mercedes 4Matic, which can cost up to $4K on S-Class).
Not enough distinction from TSX. In fact, I assumed this picture was posted to showcase aforementioned stubbiness in TSX profile (although I don’t see it), until I noticed the door. This isn’t going to woo enough buyers from sedans. Coupe has to maintain a difference and give up sedan like proportions. Older Accord coupes and the 2001+ CL were plagued with the issue.
RSX will have to be: Small, Cheaper, Lighter and more Athletic. And the small and light factors will conflict with use of the midsize platform which is designed for larger cars. There isn’t going to be enough weight savings by simply shortening the wheelbase (if that were possible on the platform to go below 105 inch) and the length.
Curb weight of Accord coupe versus sedan would make for a good illustration. And as is obvious, there isn’t much to be gained. In the end, one would end up with a 3200 lb. FWD coupe with 200 HP at $26K. That would be similar to Prelude SH while being 100 lb. porkier and competing with likes of 350Z, RX-8 and 325Ci.
RSX needs to continue to use the compact platform. If K24 (instead of K20) adds 20-30 lb and SH-AWD adds 225 lb., we would have a 200 HP RSX w/SH-AWD that can go head to head with the aforementioned competition. And it could potentially have a base price at $25K, well equipped!
But speaking of current RSX styling, the rear reminds me of the Legend Coupe. The two have a very similar profile. The front could use a more Acura theme though.
S-Class has 4Matic as a free option now, but 4Matic had three different “class based” price tag. About $2K for C-Class, about $3K for E-Class and about $4K for S-Class. Mercedes apparently went for (near standard) AWD in S-Class because 30% of the buyers opted for it and they noticed an increase in sales as equipped compared to RWD models. Good move, IMO.
$25-26k nowadays is nothing. That's about the price of the average car, and the Acuras would come well equipped
I'm assuming that you are okay with the 3200 lb/FWD/200 HP RSX at $26K. But, I see another Prelude in the making. While Prelude had a disadvantage of not wearing a premium badge, RSX would get bad publicity (much like Civic Si) in comparisons for not delivering enough for the money.
Few seem to compare feature based price tag anyway. RL is a classic example. To many, it is a $49K car while competition costs $40K. In case of coupes, the requirements can be different. While TSX formula works well as a sedan, RSX may not, in the same price class. It could very well end up being the TL/CL duo of 2001-2003 era where CL was eventually lifted off the market while TL continued its success.
Remember, TSX coupe will also have to go against Accord Coupe. A TSX Coupe will be eaten alive by TSX (sedan) itself, the rest will be handled by Accord Coupe and the rest of the competition. So, TSX Coupe by simply chopping off two doors and very subtle exterior changes isn’t an idea that is going to get my support.
As for hatchback styling, it makes sense, even in $25-30K class, and RSX has got to have it. Now wagon style may be questionable in the longer term, but that would also require two more doors. Mercedes and BMW failed because they didn’t deliver the right product. I’ve made an attempt to sit in a C230 HB and failed to see why I would pay $28-30K (reasonably loaded) for that thing. BMW 318ti was another story. No wonder, in one case, the owner replaced the 318ti emblem with M3, but couldn’t do anything about the rest.
But, RSX would be better served by staying couple of grands under TSX, being lighter and more athletic (performance oriented) while maintaining a wider appeal to younger buyers. The higher the price class, the older an average buyer is going to be. This is one reason why I have trouble imagining anyone but a 60 year old in a Lexus LS430.
Personally, I'm hoping the RDX is based on the TSX. As crossovers become more and more popular, the lines between wagon and ute become less well defined. I'd give up a bit of handling performance for a higher seating position/better visibility, bit of clearance, and all-weather capability.
Rumors have it on the CR-V platform, which is an interesting choice. It's supposed to be a 2 door, right? Not sure they need a wheelbase quite that long.
Nobody is certain. We've seen many rumors suggesting that the RDX will be based on the "next" CR-V platform. And we've also seen one Honda official saying that it won't be based on the CR-V platform. Of course, it's also possible the next CR-V will be based on the smaller version of the mid-size global platform (TSX), meaning that both rumors are technically correct.
As we've been seeing for the past few years, mini-utes are no longer "mini". They are now "small" utes, and getting to be direct competition for the smaller mid-size vehicles. In terms of size, there's not a whole of difference between an Equinox, Vue, Santa Fe, and vehicles like the Highlander, Murano, and Axiom.
Trucks like the Rodeo (once a mid-size) are now often classified as small. Hyundai introduced the Santa Fe as a direct competitor for the CR-V. Now they are introducing the Tucson as a direct competitor for the CR-V (!?!?)
So, I don't think it would be surprising if the next CR-V and upcoming RDX were actually a bit bigger and more expensive. With the Element slotted below the CR-V in price, they have a little more wiggle room. The Pilot is a relatively large mid-size, so there's some room on the upper end of the scale as well. I'm not betting on it, but I can't discount the idea either.
It is possible that CR-V will use a slightly different platform from what it currently does, perhaps also to use VTM-4 instead of the recently improved RT-4WD.
It is possible that CR-V and RDX will share the platform, and I doubt the Acura will get only two doors. In all likelihood, it will be about the same size as CR-V, a 5-seater, with (hopefully at least) 3.0/V6 and VTM-4. I believe Acura will target $30-35K price tag with it.
Tucson is as big as the Santa Fe, but that's because the next Sante Fe will grow bigger.
Also, the X3 is bigger than the X5 in some dimensions, but again the next X5 will grow and may even seat 7.
Noone seems to understand the cheaper ones are supposed to be smaller. )
I see a big gap between the CR-V and Pilot in terms of price, especially because most Pilots are EXs and come it at over $30 grand. So they have a gap the SE model doesn't quite fill, and nothing in the $24-28k range.
Honda has covered a good price range with Element ($16K-$20K), CR-V ($20K-$25K) and Pilot ($27K-$35K). And with both, Element and CR-V, Honda has some wiggle room for minor overlap. If, at some point in time, Honda wanted to offer diesel or hybrid or just a V6 on CR-V, they could go to $27-28K price class.
In case of Acura, MDX is currently the starting point covering $37K to $44K price class. So, it would make sense for Acura to offer a 5-seat SUV to cover ground in $30-35K territory. It could be based off next CR-V or on midsize car platform like TSX (I highly doubt unless it is more of a wagon) or on the light truck platform shared with Pilot/Odyssey/MDX. I have a feeling that it will share the platform with CR-V. This should also benefit CR-V pretty much like Civic benefits from sharing platform with Integra/RSX.
Honda seems to be building quite a few new vehicles in the tweener range. Cars and trucks that could benefit from a small V6, without going to the 3.2 or 3.5 liter blocks. They've gotten quite a bit of mileage from the 3.0 and its variants, but there could be room for a new V6 engine (perhaps lighter) in the 2.8 to 3.2 range.
Of course, they might just go hybrid with the 2.4L four. And... as I'm writing this, I'm thinking they would get more bang for the buck by focusing their engine teams on diesels.
The J-series engines were introduced in 1996 (1997 CL), but have received major changes in 2002. I would say that they are going to be around for a few years before replacement.
As for smaller displacement, using J30A block will bring little to no benefit in terms of weight and size. I'm not sure if it will help in terms of cost either. There used to be a J25A (JDM) which was dumped last year and per Honda, the new J30A is actually more compact and lighter than that 2.5/V6 (rated 200 HP/178 lb.-ft).
If a new J25A could be smaller/lighter, it would make for an excellent choice in RDX and TSX!
"As for smaller displacement, using J30A block will bring little to no benefit in terms of weight and size. I'm not sure if it will help in terms of cost either."
Comments
The Rolla was less "edgy" than the competitors, so you are correct that the Civic just needs a HP boost, and some sport cues to compete. Hey, sounds like the engine/suspension/seats from the Si!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
-juice
To me, if a car is impractical, might as well go all the way and get a roadster.
That 2.3l in the next Miata would sure peak my interest.
-juice
I hope with the next Civic Honda goes back to a newer version of the 92-95 version. They need to grace it with 4-wheel disc brakes, side curtains, and ABS as standard equipment.
There's more I want to say but I am so tired at this point my brain has lost capability to translate even the simplest of thoughts into a coherent post.......
With the new Si, Honda obviously went for lower (from the factory) output than is possible out of the K20A but with more grunt (since 111 lb.-ft that old Si delivered at high rpm was seen as a negative by many). The old Si engine carried a 1.6 however.
Hopefully, next time around Honda will give the Si the best of both worlds, now that it should be using K20. ~140 lb.-ft at in low-mid range and about 200 HP at the top end.
Yummy.
-juice
With 2900 lb curb weight, 200-210 HP/~170 lb.-ft and 7100 rpm redline, RSX would have replaced Prelude however! But, a better idea might be to throw in SH-AWD, try to keep under 3000 lb and go for the TSX-tune K24 in the RSX. This would allow RSX to compete well in $25-27K price range.
The RSX hatch should've been a Honda all along, I say. It doesn't really fit into the new Acura image.
-juice
As far as Acura marketing, RSX deserves its place, but as a coupe alternative to TSX and to appeal to a younger buyer (coupe buyers are typically younger than sedan buyers anyway) who care for more sport, style and not as much for comfort. With TSX positioned to compete in $27-29K price range, use of K24A, more refinement, and addition of SH-AWD could still allow for a well equipped RSX at $25-27K.
If this happens, RSX would have covered the ground earlier served by Prelude SH and then some. Use of K24 would also allow Acura to mate automatic transmission to a 200-210 HP RSX creating an appeal for those who don’t favor 6-speed manual transmission while providing an option to those who do.
Ideal lineup for Acura: RSX (25-27K), TSX (27-30K), TL (33-40K), CL ($40-45K), RL (~50K). NSX needs to stick around as well, but not without a redesign.
I know they make a wagon, but I've never seen a coupe. I bet it would look very sharp.
They could bring a TSX wagon, add AWD, maybe even give it a slight lift. It could compete with the Outback, XC70, and allroad quattro.
-juice
-juice
I'm not sure if Acura should offer anything smaller/cheaper. That's Honda's job.
-juice
I think a coupe version, to replace the Civic-based RSX, would have to be sportier. IMHO, losing weight is the most obvious solution.
TSX is smallish so families will go to a TL or an MDX anyway.
So I guess I just contradicted myself, go ahead and shorten the wheelbase. LOL
-juice
That would be the RSX I have been talking about! Acura should make a move in that direction. Continuation of compact platform should be possible (to save weight AND cost).
I don't think it would be a glorified Civic. The size would be comparable, but the underpinnings are different. Note, I have nothing against the strut set-up, but the TSX sports the double bones everyone clamors for. Based on the racing use of the TSX, I think the chassis has more upward performance potential than the Civic.
The coupe could still be shorter in length, but it would have to be shorter in height also, to make the design look more proportional.
Anyone good at photochop?
-juice
http://automobilemag.com/reviews/0411_legacy_comparo/index.html
CL have, that makes it 10 grand more than the TL? The Infiniti G35X and BMW 330xi don't even charge that much of a premium for AWD over their RWD brothers. Heck, the UltraLux package on the Lexus LS430 is only 12 grand. And I'm sure the CL won't be upstaging the RL right? (Though given how long the TL has upstaged the RL, it wouldn't surprise me)
Looks great!
Did you shorten the wheelbase? Just curious.
Nice article but I really think the Legacy and Mazda6 are closer to the TSX in terms of size and sportiness, so that isn't really fair.
-juice
That looks a lot more like an Acura than the RSX does, for sure.
-juice
TL doesn’t compete with RL, not any more! For a long time (1992-1998), Vigor/TL used to be an also ran. The Legend, however, did its job until the docile 1996 RL. There is no doubt that TL w/SH-AWD would be cheaper than RL, and match it on the spec sheet. But to understand the subtle differences, we would have to wake up the little connoisseur in all of us.
As for the AWD premium, none of us know how much SH-AWD will cost as an option (we should see when it is offered in TL), but not unlike other “advanced” AWD systems, I expect it to cost $2-3K (as much as Mercedes 4Matic, which can cost up to $4K on S-Class).
$2000 is industry-standard, though.
-juice
RSX will have to be: Small, Cheaper, Lighter and more Athletic. And the small and light factors will conflict with use of the midsize platform which is designed for larger cars. There isn’t going to be enough weight savings by simply shortening the wheelbase (if that were possible on the platform to go below 105 inch) and the length.
Curb weight of Accord coupe versus sedan would make for a good illustration. And as is obvious, there isn’t much to be gained. In the end, one would end up with a 3200 lb. FWD coupe with 200 HP at $26K. That would be similar to Prelude SH while being 100 lb. porkier and competing with likes of 350Z, RX-8 and 325Ci.
RSX needs to continue to use the compact platform. If K24 (instead of K20) adds 20-30 lb and SH-AWD adds 225 lb., we would have a 200 HP RSX w/SH-AWD that can go head to head with the aforementioned competition. And it could potentially have a base price at $25K, well equipped!
But speaking of current RSX styling, the rear reminds me of the Legend Coupe. The two have a very similar profile. The front could use a more Acura theme though.
-juice
-juice
I'm assuming that you are okay with the 3200 lb/FWD/200 HP RSX at $26K. But, I see another Prelude in the making. While Prelude had a disadvantage of not wearing a premium badge, RSX would get bad publicity (much like Civic Si) in comparisons for not delivering enough for the money.
Few seem to compare feature based price tag anyway. RL is a classic example. To many, it is a $49K car while competition costs $40K. In case of coupes, the requirements can be different. While TSX formula works well as a sedan, RSX may not, in the same price class. It could very well end up being the TL/CL duo of 2001-2003 era where CL was eventually lifted off the market while TL continued its success.
The minute you say "hatch" you put the price limit at around $22k, maybe even $20k.
But a coupe can cost whatever and that's fine.
I don't make the rules, the market does. Mercedes and BMW have failed to sell $26k hatches.
-juice
As for hatchback styling, it makes sense, even in $25-30K class, and RSX has got to have it. Now wagon style may be questionable in the longer term, but that would also require two more doors. Mercedes and BMW failed because they didn’t deliver the right product. I’ve made an attempt to sit in a C230 HB and failed to see why I would pay $28-30K (reasonably loaded) for that thing. BMW 318ti was another story. No wonder, in one case, the owner replaced the 318ti emblem with M3, but couldn’t do anything about the rest.
But, RSX would be better served by staying couple of grands under TSX, being lighter and more athletic (performance oriented) while maintaining a wider appeal to younger buyers. The higher the price class, the older an average buyer is going to be. This is one reason why I have trouble imagining anyone but a 60 year old in a Lexus LS430.
I just think a hatch in that price range is risky. A wagon or crossover, then.
-juice
Guess I'm just a utility kinda guy.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
A TSX wagon would end up lighter.
-juice
As we've been seeing for the past few years, mini-utes are no longer "mini". They are now "small" utes, and getting to be direct competition for the smaller mid-size vehicles. In terms of size, there's not a whole of difference between an Equinox, Vue, Santa Fe, and vehicles like the Highlander, Murano, and Axiom.
Trucks like the Rodeo (once a mid-size) are now often classified as small. Hyundai introduced the Santa Fe as a direct competitor for the CR-V. Now they are introducing the Tucson as a direct competitor for the CR-V (!?!?)
So, I don't think it would be surprising if the next CR-V and upcoming RDX were actually a bit bigger and more expensive. With the Element slotted below the CR-V in price, they have a little more wiggle room. The Pilot is a relatively large mid-size, so there's some room on the upper end of the scale as well. I'm not betting on it, but I can't discount the idea either.
It is possible that CR-V and RDX will share the platform, and I doubt the Acura will get only two doors. In all likelihood, it will be about the same size as CR-V, a 5-seater, with (hopefully at least) 3.0/V6 and VTM-4. I believe Acura will target $30-35K price tag with it.
Also, the X3 is bigger than the X5 in some dimensions, but again the next X5 will grow and may even seat 7.
Noone seems to understand the cheaper ones are supposed to be smaller.
I see a big gap between the CR-V and Pilot in terms of price, especially because most Pilots are EXs and come it at over $30 grand. So they have a gap the SE model doesn't quite fill, and nothing in the $24-28k range.
-juice
In case of Acura, MDX is currently the starting point covering $37K to $44K price class. So, it would make sense for Acura to offer a 5-seat SUV to cover ground in $30-35K territory. It could be based off next CR-V or on midsize car platform like TSX (I highly doubt unless it is more of a wagon) or on the light truck platform shared with Pilot/Odyssey/MDX. I have a feeling that it will share the platform with CR-V. This should also benefit CR-V pretty much like Civic benefits from sharing platform with Integra/RSX.
Honda seems to be building quite a few new vehicles in the tweener range. Cars and trucks that could benefit from a small V6, without going to the 3.2 or 3.5 liter blocks. They've gotten quite a bit of mileage from the 3.0 and its variants, but there could be room for a new V6 engine (perhaps lighter) in the 2.8 to 3.2 range.
Of course, they might just go hybrid with the 2.4L four. And... as I'm writing this, I'm thinking they would get more bang for the buck by focusing their engine teams on diesels.
As for smaller displacement, using J30A block will bring little to no benefit in terms of weight and size. I'm not sure if it will help in terms of cost either. There used to be a J25A (JDM) which was dumped last year and per Honda, the new J30A is actually more compact and lighter than that 2.5/V6 (rated 200 HP/178 lb.-ft).
If a new J25A could be smaller/lighter, it would make for an excellent choice in RDX and TSX!
What about the 160 hp 2.4L vs. the 160 hp 2.0L?