These discussions about whether the TSX is underpowered are so subjective, we should just table them. To some drivers, the TSX will seem ridiculously underpowered. To others, it will see like vast overkill. Drive it - that's really the only way to know.
It's about right for me and about the max I think you can have in FWD and not start to notice handling issues.
akal50, you sound like the Accord EX V6 would be perfect for you - nice power, super comfortable, and great value. See if you can come to terms with the styling - I didn't care much for it originally, but it has worn well and looks better on the road than it does in pictures.
"FYI, a turbo four does not equal a six cylinder." I never claimed that one would.
Evidently, a normally-aspirated 2.4 I4 does not equal a turbo four, much less a six cylinder.
I'm be willing to bet the TSX would be more rewarding to drive if the torque and HP numbers were reversed. Tomorrow, I'll find out for myself when I drive a six-speed.
Howdy, ya'll! Something "markjenn" said reminded me of what Acura did when the '99 TL came out. They kept prices very close to MSRP by purposefully keeping them in short supply. Seems like I remember it being about a year - year and half before inventories started rising to meet demand. I notice now it's pretty easy to find a dealer with 20 or 30 TL's. And much softer prices. I have a feeling they may do that with the TSX, too. Especially if they have to bring it in from Japan (I can't remember where it's built).
I really like the TSX, but I do think it's a little pricey. In '96 I bought an Infiniti G20. It stickered for $27,600. Bought it for $20,600. Infiniti found they just couldn't demand that price on a four cylinder. Before you jump on me, remember, in 1996 the G20 had all the latest technology. And I compared to a loaded Accord EX(no V6 back then). The G20 was much more car for less money. No timing belt to replace, better warranty, loaners....yada, yada. However, I do recognize the TSX has LOTS more features and technology. And I absolutely love all it's features and technololgy. So, that mitigates my feelings some and makes it seem a little more worth the high price. I'm so glad Acura came out with the TSX. It will be the perfect replacement for my G20. (Except for the level of customer service.) I love the G35, but I agree with those who say, it's more power than I really need and more money that I really want to spend. btw, G35 is an incredible driver!!! OMG
I love my G20. It's fun to drive. But, of course, it is underpowered. I'm single and I don't cart three or four family members around, so it has generally had enough power for me. I still manage to pass most everybody on the road....V12 MB's, Beemers, Corvettes, etc. (little side note here...personally I think the rule should be that if I can pass you in your high powered performance car, I should get to pull you over and take your car. :-) I'd have quite a few Porsches if that were the case. I also think there should be a special driving test for those drivers where they have to prove they can drive the car the way it was intended or they don't get to buy the car.) Anyway, I was concerned about the horsepower to torque ratio in the TSX (200bhp/168 lb-ft torque). I prefer a slush-box, so horsepower gets wasted if there's not enough torque. But, I've been reading that the computer engine management system in the TSX keeps the torque curve very flat and that it should have good low end torque. That, along with the "Sport-shift", should do the trick. I'm planning to drive one this week, so I'll see how it compares to my G20's 4-banger, 140bhp/132lb-ft torque. I expect good things.
"...personally I think the rule should be that if I can pass you in your high powered performance car, I should get to pull you over and take your car. :-)"
I can guarantee that if that is indeed the rule, and everyone knows it, you wouldn't be able to pass too many, if any, of those cars you talked about.
"I'm be willing to bet the TSX would be more rewarding to drive if the torque and HP numbers were reversed." - Himiler
I know you're not serious with that remark, but in theory that engine would have a redline somewhere around 4,600 rpms. You'd spend so much time between gears, you wouldn't go anywhere!
i can confirm that, blueguy is a real meanie when it comes to Hondas. But he has been fair with his assessments, the Accord is just not his cup of tea.
Me on the other hand won't be missing my Jetta once I get my Accord. The damn check engine light is on again. Gee, I thought that problem was solved when I had the new ignition coils installed. Maybe I'll get the TSX in a couple of years.
"I can guarantee that if that is indeed the rule, and everyone knows it, you wouldn't be able to pass too many, if any, of those cars you talked about. "
yeah, that's true for the car.....i guess those drivers probably wouldn't pass my driving test :-)
I too was looking for a new car a few months back, and ended up buying the maxima, out of impulse (and the discount).I love the the car too, but I also feel that it lacks a little finese while in motion.
If I haven't bought a car, the TSX or TL-S would be in my garage by now.
Now someone would say that TSX and '03 TL-S should not be compared to each other. Well, I'm not comparing them. It depends on which would fit my budget and lifestyle best. And I know I can get the TL-S below invoice; making it $2500-3000 more than the TSX which I think is worth it.
After all, Honda/Acura does make the best 4 bangers out there. Just look at the S2000!!
Off topic, but what is so special about that engine? 120hp per liter? Yeah, but in a roadster that gets far worse mileage than most V6 engines, even though the S2000 weights 500lbs less. That engine is awfully inefficient.
LOL! Actually, a dump truck redline would be kind of interesting...another new direction for Hondura to explore!
But seriously, I was just suggesting that the TSX might have been a very different driving experience if the HP were 166 and the torque 200 lb/ft -- more like the A4 1.8T. Granted, there might be some traction and torque-steer issues, but if the motor could be made to rev to 6000-6500...
Don't get me wrong. The BMW is a nice car. Not as reliable, but nice nonetheless, and I certainly wouldn't turn down a 330 series if someone gave me one. But I have a hard time justifying the extra cost for what you get (and I could easily do so). But some here are comparing the TSX to the v6 BMW 330i series, and granted, it's not a proper comparison. But it does compare to the 325 series quite well, and when you add reliability, value, and just plain fun, the TSX wins.
The BMW 330i does not use a V6. It uses a much smoother 3.0L Inline-6 cylinder (I6) engine. The 325 is also not a 4-cylinder. It is a 2.5L Inline-6 cylinder (I6) engine.
Interestingly, the Lexus IS200 sold in Europe, has a 2.0L 4-cylinder and a 2.0L 6-cylinder engine. Both engines with different number of cylinders, offering the same displacement.
Also, going by what Audi engineers did with the new S4....they bought in their 4.2L V8 engine to replace the earlier 2.6L V6 Turbo engine. The main point being that they modified the 4.2L V8 engine, so that it weighed exactly the same as the earlier 2.6L V6, while providing more torque and horsepower.
If Honda could bring in a 2.8L V6 engine weighing less than the 2.4L 4-banger (or at least weighing the same) in the TSX, there would not be any weight gains on the nose of the car, while providing more low-end thrust to move this heavy car along, a bit more authoritatively.
Not to be argumentative, but the S2000 engine is highly efficient (when defined as energy output as a percentage of energy input) -- its specific output is a clear indicator of such.
You may be forgetting the fact that the S2000's gear ratios and power curve conspire to keep the engine constantly on boil, no to mention a driver's propensity to drive the car hard.
Driven like a Civic and shifted before 4,000 RPMs, I'd bet the S2000 could deliver Civic-like fuel economy numbers (and VW Cabrio acceleration).
According to a very detailed article in "Popular Mechanics" several years ago - the In-line 6 is inherently the most balanced engine design. They were reporting on BMW's V12, saying it was like two in-line 6's put together.
Evidently, a normally-aspirated 2.4 I4 does not equal a turbo four, much less a six cylinder
An engine with four cylinders is a four cylinder engine, regardless of it being turbo charged or normally aspirated.
I'm be willing to bet the TSX would be more rewarding to drive if the torque and HP numbers were reversed.
I thought you knew better than that!
But seriously, I was just suggesting that the TSX might have been a very different driving experience if the HP were 166 and the torque 200 lb/ft -- more like the A4 1.8T.
I couldn't disagree that it will be a very different driving experience. But I will take more horsepower, thanks.
And speaking of the output you suggested, to get 200 lb.-ft or so, we may be talking 2.8 liter V6 or so. And knowing Honda engines, that would mean 166 HP would come at around 4600 rpm like Varmint suggested. Even Accord V6 revs to 6800 rpm, developing its peak power at 6250 rpm. Do you think Honda would settle-in for only 166 HP so that they could have "more torque" compared to horsepower? ;-)
You need is Honda's upcoming diesel for the European Accord. 2.2 liter, CTDi, 140 HP @ 4000 rpm, 245 lb.-ft @ 2000 rpm. For me, the K24A is just fine.
BTW, A4/1.8T has 170 HP/166 lb.-ft. BMW 325 has 184 HP/175 lb.-ft.
Granted, there might be some traction and torque-steer issues, but if the motor could be made to rev to 6000-6500...
A typical Honda engine delivers 90-95% (in some cases, close to 100%) of the peak torque when the maximum power arrives. Pick any engine you know and you will notice it. And if you look at the engine dyno, the 75-80% of the peak torque is available at 1000 rpm, and 80-85% at the redline. That said, let us take your example. 166 HP @ 6000 rpm (meaning, the engine is developing 145 lb.-ft) 200 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm (152 HP)
By the time 6500 rpm is achieved, it is likely that the engine would be delivering less power than it would do in the next gear, especially in the gears where horsepower is crucial (highways).
And when that happens, it makes no sense to let the engine rev higher, for sake of shorter gearing, when the higher gear would deliver more power than the lower gear. That is why I said, diesel engines might be better suited for your needs.
Off topic, but what is so special about that engine?
Couple of years ago, I was reading a list compiled by SAE as the best engines in the world. FYI, F20C was third in overall ranking, just below the Ferrari 5.5 liter/V12 (now this engine is 5.7/V12). SAE must have some reason, don't you think?
the Lexus IS200 sold in Europe, has a 2.0L 4-cylinder and a 2.0L 6-cylinder engine. Both engines with different number of cylinders, offering the same displacement.
I didn't know Lexus IS200 (Europe) was available with the I-4. I know it is available in Japan (Altezza) with the engine delivering 210 HP. The Euro IS200 (2.0 liter I-6) delivered (when I last saw it)... 154 HP @ 6400 rpm 144 lb.-ft @ 4400 rpm
Thanks for all the fascinating info, but since you seem to think you have me pegged otherwise, why would you think I'd want the responses of a diesel engine?
I was just brainstorming about what the TSX would be like if it had more torque than HP. You didn't have to get all technical about it (although you did appear to enjoy doing so).
As far as stating that a four-cylinder engine is a four-cylinder engine goes (regardless of induction, output or diplacement), I think you're going out of your way to demonstrate a clear mastery of the obvious.
In much the same way, a diamond is just a piece of carbon, right?
"If Honda could bring in a 2.8L V6 engine weighing less than the 2.4L 4-banger (or at least weighing the same) in the TSX, there would not be any weight gains on the nose of the car, while providing more low-end thrust to move this heavy car along, a bit more authoritatively."
A good idea in theory, but the 2.4 is based on a 2.0 design. Getting a 2.8 under the weight of a 2.0 with a V-shaped design would be a neat trick. Probably an expensive one. You're asking Acura to add considerable cost just to please a bunch of people who are going to purchase the TL anyway.
Engines don't have to have more "torque" than "horsepower". Broader torque curve will always result in more horsepower than you would like to have.
Another statement of the obvious is that to feel better, start using Nm as the unit of torque instead of lb.-ft!
In much the same way, a diamond is just a piece of carbon, right?
Yes, but it didn't have to be as complicated as to get down to the composition and metallurgy of the engine. All you had to read was the word that you typed ,turbo charged "four".
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm feeling quite adequate when using "lb.-ft." (Just a suggestion for you -- next time, try "turbo charged" with a hyphen.)
Back to business. Okay, point taken about the breadth of torque over, say, 6000RPM. So, set the redline at 5000RPM, let the torque peak early and plateau (ala VW's 1.8T), and whatever additional HP you get as revs climb is a bonus.
Actually, I'm not sure I see the value of continued debate (?) on this tangent. And before you make a point of stating that I was the one who initiated it (admit it, you'd love to), let's agree to put it to rest.
Swapping the torque (lb.-ft: sorry, I couldn't resist) and HP numbers was just an (admitedly goofy) idea that was posted only as a "wondering aloud" excersise, and not intended to be a point of contention.
I can appreciate a good engineering debate as well as anyone, as long as it is kept in context. Engineer types often fall into the trap of evaluating a car like the tsx just on paper specs without bothering to actually drive the car to see whether it conforms to their preconcived theories or not. Informed buyers are interested in theories re: LSD, optimal redline for hp or torque, linear vs. peaky engine power output,engine size and design, spring rates, etc. But, they are also interested in hearing from people who have also driven the car and can report on the good and bad from that experience (especially on whether they give a thumbs up or thumbs down on conventional theories). Sometimes a test drive will reveal new (good and bad) info not covered by the paper reviewers.
Also, any car can be improved. But, it smacks of unfairness and hypocrisy to dismiss the tsx because it lacks something like LSD or an i6, which are both probably missing in the cars driven by most posters here, without giving a fair review based on an experienced test drive of the features the car possesses.
The Subaru WRX STi Turbo-charged 2.5L 4-cylinder Boxer engine with AVCS (Subaru-speak for i-VTEC/VVTL-i), develops 300Hp and 300 lbs/ft of torque. The torque peaks at around 4000 rpm with 90% of it (280 lbs/ft) available from around 1800rpm. This would propel the car to 60mph in around 4.4secs. So what does this show about turbo-charged "four"s ? How many 2.5L V6s develop anywhere close to this torque from a turbo-charged "four" ? Unfortunately, Subaru is importing only 5000 of these from Japan, this year.
The Turbo-charging changes the scenario altogether. It should no more be considered as a mere 4-cylinder anymore. It behaves like a powerful V8 engine, changing the dynamics completely.
Incidentally, the rally 2.0L turbo Subaru engine, develops so much low-end torque that without AWD, it would not be tractable. It blasts to 60mph in something like 3.6secs.
Whether you think the TSX is underpowered all depends on what you're used to. If you're coming from a BMW 3-series or Lexus IS300, maybe you'll think it's weak. I've only had two cars, a 1991 Accord DX and a 2000 Accord EXV6. If the TSX is just as strong as my current Accord, that'll be fine. I love sitting at the stoplight and smoking the guy next to me and I love being able to easily pass people on the freeway. If the TSX doesn't struggle at the light or on the freeway, that's good enough for me. I was driving my Accord on the freeway and even though the engine is great, the handling stinks sometimes. It needs more grip too. I don't doubt the TSX is better built than the Accord. You can tell that just by lookin at the pictures. The last thing I want is an Accord that squeaks and rattles. I can read other people's comments about the TSX all day but I won't know if it's right for me until I drive it. I don't need a new car until the end of June so it's too early to go drive one. How early do I need to reserve one?
Well, while you drive a TSX, you can feel very continental and imagine you are in Europe, where this is the norm. For more authentic flavour, all you need is is a diesel option, metric gauges and an a child smoking cigarettes in the back seat.
I'd take it you have the 6sp in your TSX, because the automatic I drove was slow if you didn't really step on it. If the TSX "goes like a bat out of hell", what did you drive previously? What color combo is your car? I not knocking the the TSX, I rather liked it, but it just felt too slow to me, again the automative version. Having a V6 means more than just better 0-60 times, it means not having to rev the engine's block off to pass, it also mean you generally get a quieter ride. The TSX is very well built, probably tighter than any current Acura product (save NSX) and probably their best looking car in quite some time, but I think it would be perfect with a small (2.8-3.0L) V6 with around 210hp and 190+ lb-ft of torque.
I test drove both the auto and 6-speed today. Nothing extensive, just 15 minutes in each but enough to get a feel of both. Excellent fit and finish, very nice interior. Acceptably quiet. Certainly no worse than my current CL-S. It's got the high cowl just like the Ameri-Accord (one negative). But the important part -- I was underwhelmed by the power in both versions. The auto especially felt underpowered. To accelerate into traffic almost always required burying the throttle to induce a kickdown. Even then I didn't feel the shove-in-the-back that I expected. Worse yet, the tranny upshifted as soon as I relaxed the slightest off the throttle. So if you're squirting through traffic, it seems the tranny was always downshifting and upshifting. I also found the throttle spring very heavy. Around town it was definitely less peppy than our '02 Accord V6. The power delivery wasn't notably smooth either, but that could have been due to a green engine. The 6-speed felt a lot like my 2000 Prelude. The shifter was somewhat smoother. Shorter stroke. Not as nice as the one in the S2000. The manual definitely was peppier, but only because you can hold it in the higher revs more so than you can in the auto. Just like the Prelude, under 3,000 rpm the car is a slug. The steering felt very good, nicely weighted. But at the end of the day, I can't see myself buying this car. The saleslady was very honest. She kind of hinted that the new TL may be worth waiting for. She said the project MSRP of the TL is about $5K CDN more than the TSX's. Based on my test drive, I'd gladly spend the extra 5K. I'd say anyone coming off of a V6 -- Accord, TL, CL -- would likely not find the TSX's power sufficient.
Listening to these people complain about a car with 0-60 in around 7.0 seconds kills me. I used to drive both cars back to back and while I knew the Zcar could pull a 5.5 sec. 0-60 I never felt that my FX was a slug. In fact I had a great time driving it. Heck the 95 GS300 I'm driving now pulls 0-60 in over 8 seconds. I love this car. And it cost much more than the TSX in 1995 dollars. The TSX is a steal.
We've all read many, many comments on this board about the TSX's acceleration. For the sake of argument, lets say that a manual TSX probably does 0-60 in about 7.0 seconds under optimal launch conditions. Okay, there are a number of very desirable cars (and even some more pedestrian cars) that will beat that. Some of these cars even cost the same (or less) than the TSX.
Now, let's look at this from a different angle. There are a number of quite desirable cars that would get whipped in a drag race with the TSX. Even some "competitors" that cost more would not go as quickly. In addition, the vast majority of cars on the road will not do 0-60 in 7 seconds. For all of us in here who like to zip out in front of everyone we pull up next to at stop lights (that includes me), in a TSX we would be able to beat them 9 out of 10 times because the TSX really is faster. We can probably add another 7% for all the people who don't realize they're competitors in a drag race.
In the grand scheme of things, a 0-60 time in the 7s is really pretty darn good for a car between 25 and 30k. If it weren't for the trend set by the new Nissan 3.5L V6 cars, the new Accord V6, and, in some degree, by the Mazda 6 V6 (all very new), we'd probably be talking about, "how incredible the TSX's acceleration is" instead of complaining about it.
Cars in general are comparatively cheaper now. For example, the MB E500 is $80K CDN. 10 years ago, the 500E was $107K CDN. And there is no doubt which is the better car.
You can't compare value or performance between cars from different eras. Many so-called economy cars now can outperform so-called high-performance cars from 10 years ago.
Judging from my test drive, I think the TSX can only pull off 7.0 to 60 if you drive it like you don't own it, or as one C & D editor once said of the S2000, you gotta drive it like you just stole it!
I really don't think the TSX can manage a 7.0sec 0-60. Maybe with a high rpm clutch-dump, you may be able to manage something close. But with such abnormal driving, all we are doing would be trashing a decently built car, since if you indulge in a few of these clutch-dumps, you are looking towards replacing a transmission. In normal very aggressive driving, I think something around 7.5-7.8 secs 0-60 would be more what the 6-speed TSX would be able to manage. An Accord V6 with the Automatic transmission would do the same in around 6.7-7.0 secs, under the same driving conditions.
If you move to a TSX from maybe a previous generation 4-cylinder Camry or Accord, it might seem peppy. The current 4-cylinder Accord feels more peppy than the TSX at lower city speeds, since the torque output from both engines are similar (161 lbs/ft for the Accord with regular fuel vs 166 lbs/ft for the TSX with premium fuel) with the Accord carting along almost 200 less pounds. Moving from a reasonably high-powered vehicle like the TL-s or even the TL, the TSX would appear positively anaemic. Nothing to do with the power output from the engine, which for its size is excellent......everything to do with the weight of this heavy car. This 4-cylinder engine with 200hp and 166lbs/ft of Torque, is lugging along the same weight as the Honda Accord V6 which has 240HP and 212lbs/ft of Torque.
Acura dealers are tongue-tied when told about the cheaper V6 Honda Accord's turbine-like powerplant (with 0.6L additional displacement when compared to the TSX), and our local dealer admitted that they wish the TSX came with at least the Accord's V6 engine. Sales are definitely softer than expected, after all the built up hype. Going by the way they talk, I am pretty sure that good deals (well below MSRP) are right around the corner, for the TSX. For comparison, cars like the Acura MDX, Honda Odyssey, Honda Pilot, S2000 etc., are selling at or near MSRP, even several years after their introduction, which does not bode well for the TSX. Especially if the dealers start wheeling and dealing on such a low-volume new product, within weeks of its introduction. JMHO.
I don't understand. The only similariy of the two engines is that the S2000's engine is a 4 cylinder made by Honda. C@D got 7.5 sec out of the regular Accord 5 speed and 7.9 in the street start. I don't remember reading anywhere where they said they had to abuse the car. Why would they have to abuse the TSX's drivetrain since the torque peaks are in the same place. It's a lame argument that has no basis in fact.
I guess none of you would buy a 525i or a 325i. They are all slower than the TSX. What about a GS300? Or maybe a Passat W8. I mean if all you judge your cars by is 0-60 then you should by durn happy just picking up a SR-T Neon.
While I think the cheaper and more powerful competition (Accord V6, Mazda 6s, and Altima 3.5) will damp demand, the extremely modest production goals for the TSX, along with fairly aggressive advertising, will keep supply down and make deep discounting unlikely. I'd see it selling for MSRP through the summer, with some $500-off deals becoming common next fall. Unless Acura raises production, I'd don't see near-invoice happening anytime in the forseeable future.
So if the TSX is what you want, I just don't see a huge advantage in waiting. Heck the total margin for the car is only $2200, so even a $500+invoice deal isn't a huge discount.
As someone else has said, I think this car is going to be a bit of a halo car for Acura - something to move their demographics to a sportier crowd and get BMW, MB, Audi, Volvo, and Saab customers into their showrooms. With the rumored new TL, maybe Acura is finally getting off their duff and realize that they are well positioned to go after the allusive "reliable Japanese BMW" target that various folks take a run at now and then. (At least as well positioned as any FWD-oriented car company can be.) So someone who goes in and looks at a TSX now and decides it is too small and slow, will at least not lump Acura with cars like the RL and perhaps decide to keep Acura on their radar screen.
At 15K production and with what looks to be fairly high production costs, I don't see how Acura is even going to recoup their investment in marketing and emissions certification. So I don't see profit as a huge goal for this car with Acura. It is more like they're testing the waters to see if the North American market can look past the 4-cyl and smaller size and buy into a more Euro-like car.
"C@D got 7.5 sec out of the regular Accord 5 speed and 7.9 in the street start. I don't remember reading anywhere where they said they had to abuse the car. Why would they have to abuse the TSX's drivetrain since the torque peaks are in the same place. It's a lame argument that has no basis in fact."
Actually, it's entirely factual. Let's look at the two engines.
Is the difference obvious yet? Horsepower is a measure of torque at a given RPM.
hp = torque * RPM / 5252
So, assuming a constant torque, horsepower would go up the higher you rev. However, most engines loose torque beyond a certain point, and that's why horsepower is also lost beyond that point. The horsepower peak shows us where the torque decreases faster than RPMs rise.
The TSX engine continues making torque from 5500rpm to 6800rpm whereas the Accord engine does not.
At 5500rpms, the Accord 2.4l engine is making 152.7ft-lbs of torque- falling from it's 161ft-lbs peak. The TSX, on the other hand, makes 154.5ft-lbs at 6800rpm, more torque than the Accord engine makes at 5500rpm! That is why the TSX makes 200 (40 more) peak horsepower- it can make torque higher in its rev range. At 4500rpm, the TSX makes only 4 more horsepower than the Accord. The only major difference in power between these engines is BEYOND 5500rpm. Until that point, the engines make the same amount of power, only the TSX weights about 250lbs more.
That is why the TSX would be much slower if it is not revved, and faster only if it is revved. That is why all the claims of having to drive the TSX aggressively to be fast are true, and why lots of people think the car is slow. To be faster than the 4cyl Accord, the engine must at all times be kept above 5500rpms. That's why the TSX is a good match for a close-ratio 6-spd manual transmission that can keep it in those revs. This is why the lower-revving, lighter Accord does not need to be driven aggressively for its decent 0-60 times, whereas the TSX must be. Any time you shift below 5500rpm, the car is acceleration more slowly than the Accord, but it still takes premium fuel. It's completely founded in the facts.
I'm unsure of how the EPA does their fuel economy tests (and how much shorter gearing plays a part), but that 5mpg difference is huge, considering it's premium fuel too! A close-ratio 6-spd should be great for city fuel economy- you can always find the exactly correct gear and shift much earlier.
NO, I would not buy a 525i, or 325i, or GS300. Too little performance for the buck. Nor would I buy the W8. Too much money for the performance without the brand prestige.
That's an interesting analysis by stretchsje. It certainly is consistent with my first impressions of the car. Initially I kept instinctively reaching for the parking brake lever to see if I was perhaps driving with the brake on!
What it highlights is that more HP is needed = bigger engine ....so in our hypothetic world the TSX would be a good candidate for a V6 engine or a bigger 4 cylinder if possible.
I know they say the platform is supposed to be smaller but , is it really?? The wheelbase is shortened by almost 3 inches (compared to the Accord) but width is almost the same ( within an inch), so *I Think* that is very likely that a V6 could fit in the engine bay...and also think that Honda may known it and they are saving this *option* as their trump card; if that's the case, hopefully it will become a reality specially with earlier reports that some dealers are willing to deal below MSRP.....
Also a cheaper way -although less HP gained but way cheaper than a V6 - would be to bore out the existing engine (from 87mm to 89 mm) while keeping everything else the same ... That would make it a 2.5L (2463cc to be exact) and would net an average 5% gain in HP and torque.
Something like 210HP @ 6800 rpm and 174 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm Good enough to knock off 0.5 sec of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.; the would also separate the TSX from the more plebeian Accord and could be used as a selling point that the TSX is more than a rebadged Accord...
"At 4500rpm, the TSX makes only 4 more horsepower than the Accord."
It makes sense that the TSX is more of a slug compare to the cheapest Accord, if it weighs 250lb more than the Accord w/ sunroof/pwr seat.
So unless you rev past 5k rpm often... Look at all that $ you're spending - forget the TSX, especially w/ auto. Really, the Accord already handles nearly as well, & minor suspension mods such as high-pressure shocks alone can pretty much catch up the TSX! Even the TSX shares one swaybar w/ the Accord!
If weight sucks, then the still-roomy 2004 Mazda3 2.3 is the solution, even w/ Mazda's inferior 4-cyl. Besides, neither the Accord nor the TSX offers steering w/ much feedback. Of course, if it was Honda, rather than Mazda3, doing the "Focus II steering/suspension" adoption, then the car would be even better than the Mazda3. Since Honda's got superior engine & noise isolation, while Mazda's better steering feedback doesn't apply when the rack is taken over by Focus's.
I remember the EPA fuel economy rating is very disadvantageous for close-ratio stick, since there's only one "required-mph" shifting points, not rpm! EPA assumes the drivers are bunch of teenage bastards that blast the stereo so loud that they'll be too deaf to hear the engine. That was why VW invented the "up-shift light", & after some statistics, made EPA to agree to assume 80% of drivers will follow the light.
The TSX needs to spin past ~6100rpm before it makes more power than the BMW 325i's engine. That's a rather narrow window, but it's possible to accelerate faster in a TSX. The 325's engine makes more power over the rest of the rev range, and it's torque peak comes 1000rpm earlier. At 6000rpm, it's still making 161ft-lbs of torque.
Since the TSX revs higher (and I'll make the assumption that the engine is durable enough to not wear out from the higher revs, though it does increase wear and decrease mileage regardless), shorter gearing can be used to compensate for less torque. The 325i may make 169hp at 5500rpm (just a guess), whereas the TSX may make 162hp at 5500rpm. However, with shorter gearing, the TSX only needs to go ~210rpm faster to cover this gap. Since the TSX has the range to do this and at its peak makes more horsepower, the TSX does (in my opinion) have the better engine. I don't fear revving- in fact, I like to, and think it helps make a car exciting.
However, the automatic TSX is not geared aggressively, so your perceived lack of torque will be much greater. Whether or not you like this engine all depends on your driving style.
I'm not taking into account drivetrain losses, which BMW typically excels at. Though, RWD losses are usually higher than FWD, so given BMW's expertise here, things are probably even. Drivetrain losses also should take into account the power draw and efficiency of things like the alternator and air conditioning.
RWD power is much easier to put to the pavement, though, since the cars weight shifts onto the powering tires rather than away from it. Don't forget that the BMW has a 50/50 weight distribution while the TSX has a 60/40 weight distribution. During 1st gear acceleration, the powering wheels in each car probably get 60% and 50%, respectively. That's over 300lbs more forcing the rear wheels of the BMW down. This effect is multiplied while steering the car and throttling, as the TSX shares its traction with the steering whereas the BMW does not. Around turns, throttle or braking will always create downforce on the tires bearing the most lateral force, helping them grip. The BMW will always have its lateral and longitudinal traction optimally distributed, whereas the TSX will never. Huge advantage to the BMW here, as soon as the terrain gets twisty.
Your moniker "gee35coupe", which I assume means the Infiniti G35 coupe, is certainly misleading !! Going by the way you are defending the various Honda cars !
It almost comes across as if you are a fan of the G35.
I think a couple of years back, a magazine had done a test of drivetrain losses and were amazed at the very tiny losses from the BMW engine, when compared to the losses from the engines of the other manufacturers. I believe they commented then, that either BMW was underrating their engine output or the drivetrain was so efficient that it was almost unreal.
to cover up the low-end sluggishness. Even the "6th" gear revs more than 25% faster than the auto's 5th gear!
Maybe it was due to the auto I was driving, but the TSX engine feels like the fun part is only at the very-narrow upper band. If this engine is in the much-ligher Civic/RSX, then the fun part would be at a much-wider band & outrageously exciting between 6 & 7k rpm.
TSX was position in a very odd situation.... it is supposed to 'replace' the 4 door Integra!! So I think the pricing of the TSX is a problem here..... Consider that the price is very similar to RSX-Type S...... well..... any more complain now??
Comments
It's about right for me and about the max I think you can have in FWD and not start to notice handling issues.
akal50, you sound like the Accord EX V6 would be perfect for you - nice power, super comfortable, and great value. See if you can come to terms with the styling - I didn't care much for it originally, but it has worn well and looks better on the road than it does in pictures.
- Mark
I never claimed that one would.
Evidently, a normally-aspirated 2.4 I4 does not equal a turbo four, much less a six cylinder.
I'm be willing to bet the TSX would be more rewarding to drive if the torque and HP numbers were reversed. Tomorrow, I'll find out for myself when I drive a six-speed.
I really like the TSX, but I do think it's a little pricey. In '96 I bought an Infiniti G20. It stickered for $27,600. Bought it for $20,600. Infiniti found they just couldn't demand that price on a four cylinder. Before you jump on me, remember, in 1996 the G20 had all the latest technology. And I compared to a loaded Accord EX(no V6 back then). The G20 was much more car for less money. No timing belt to replace, better warranty, loaners....yada, yada. However, I do recognize the TSX has LOTS more features and technology. And I absolutely love all it's features and technololgy. So, that mitigates my feelings some and makes it seem a little more worth the high price. I'm so glad Acura came out with the TSX. It will be the perfect replacement for my G20. (Except for the level of customer service.) I love the G35, but I agree with those who say, it's more power than I really need and more money that I really want to spend. btw, G35 is an incredible driver!!! OMG
I love my G20. It's fun to drive. But, of course, it is underpowered. I'm single and I don't cart three or four family members around, so it has generally had enough power for me. I still manage to pass most everybody on the road....V12 MB's, Beemers, Corvettes, etc. (little side note here...personally I think the rule should be that if I can pass you in your high powered performance car, I should get to pull you over and take your car. :-) I'd have quite a few Porsches if that were the case. I also think there should be a special driving test for those drivers where they have to prove they can drive the car the way it was intended or they don't get to buy the car.) Anyway, I was concerned about the horsepower to torque ratio in the TSX (200bhp/168 lb-ft torque). I prefer a slush-box, so horsepower gets wasted if there's not enough torque. But, I've been reading that the computer engine management system in the TSX keeps the torque curve very flat and that it should have good low end torque. That, along with the "Sport-shift", should do the trick. I'm planning to drive one this week, so I'll see how it compares to my G20's 4-banger, 140bhp/132lb-ft torque. I expect good things.
OK. I think I've said enough for now. Laters.
I can guarantee that if that is indeed the rule, and everyone knows it, you wouldn't be able to pass too many, if any, of those cars you talked about.
I know you're not serious with that remark, but in theory that engine would have a redline somewhere around 4,600 rpms. You'd spend so much time between gears, you wouldn't go anywhere!
Me on the other hand won't be missing my Jetta once I get my Accord. The damn check engine light is on again. Gee, I thought that problem was solved when I had the new ignition coils installed. Maybe I'll get the TSX in a couple of years.
yeah, that's true for the car.....i guess those drivers probably wouldn't pass my driving test :-)
maybe in my new TSX ;-)
If I haven't bought a car, the TSX or TL-S would be in my garage by now.
Now someone would say that TSX and '03 TL-S should not be compared to each other. Well, I'm not comparing them. It depends on which would fit my budget and lifestyle best. And I know I can get the TL-S below invoice; making it $2500-3000 more than the TSX which I think is worth it.
Off topic, but what is so special about that engine? 120hp per liter? Yeah, but in a roadster that gets far worse mileage than most V6 engines, even though the S2000 weights 500lbs less. That engine is awfully inefficient.
But seriously, I was just suggesting that the TSX might have been a very different driving experience if the HP were 166 and the torque 200 lb/ft -- more like the A4 1.8T. Granted, there might be some traction and torque-steer issues, but if the motor could be made to rev to 6000-6500...
Consider the possibilities!
The BMW 330i does not use a V6. It uses a much smoother 3.0L Inline-6 cylinder (I6) engine. The 325 is also not a 4-cylinder. It is a 2.5L Inline-6 cylinder (I6) engine.
Interestingly, the Lexus IS200 sold in Europe, has a 2.0L 4-cylinder and a 2.0L 6-cylinder engine. Both engines with different number of cylinders, offering the same displacement.
Later...AH
If Honda could bring in a 2.8L V6 engine weighing less than the 2.4L 4-banger (or at least weighing the same) in the TSX, there would not be any weight gains on the nose of the car, while providing more low-end thrust to move this heavy car along, a bit more authoritatively.
Later...AH
You may be forgetting the fact that the S2000's gear ratios and power curve conspire to keep the engine constantly on boil, no to mention a driver's propensity to drive the car hard.
Driven like a Civic and shifted before 4,000 RPMs, I'd bet the S2000 could deliver Civic-like fuel economy numbers (and VW Cabrio acceleration).
Later...AH
An engine with four cylinders is a four cylinder engine, regardless of it being turbo charged or normally aspirated.
I'm be willing to bet the TSX would be more rewarding to drive if the torque and HP numbers were reversed.
I thought you knew better than that!
But seriously, I was just suggesting that the TSX might have been a very different driving experience if the HP were 166 and the torque 200 lb/ft -- more like the A4 1.8T.
I couldn't disagree that it will be a very different driving experience. But I will take more horsepower, thanks.
And speaking of the output you suggested, to get 200 lb.-ft or so, we may be talking 2.8 liter V6 or so. And knowing Honda engines, that would mean 166 HP would come at around 4600 rpm like Varmint suggested. Even Accord V6 revs to 6800 rpm, developing its peak power at 6250 rpm. Do you think Honda would settle-in for only 166 HP so that they could have "more torque" compared to horsepower? ;-)
You need is Honda's upcoming diesel for the European Accord. 2.2 liter, CTDi, 140 HP @ 4000 rpm, 245 lb.-ft @ 2000 rpm. For me, the K24A is just fine.
BTW, A4/1.8T has 170 HP/166 lb.-ft. BMW 325 has 184 HP/175 lb.-ft.
Granted, there might be some traction and torque-steer issues, but if the motor could be made to rev to 6000-6500...
A typical Honda engine delivers 90-95% (in some cases, close to 100%) of the peak torque when the maximum power arrives. Pick any engine you know and you will notice it. And if you look at the engine dyno, the 75-80% of the peak torque is available at 1000 rpm, and 80-85% at the redline. That said, let us take your example.
166 HP @ 6000 rpm (meaning, the engine is developing 145 lb.-ft)
200 lb.-ft @ 4000 rpm (152 HP)
By the time 6500 rpm is achieved, it is likely that the engine would be delivering less power than it would do in the next gear, especially in the gears where horsepower is crucial (highways).
And when that happens, it makes no sense to let the engine rev higher, for sake of shorter gearing, when the higher gear would deliver more power than the lower gear. That is why I said, diesel engines might be better suited for your needs.
Couple of years ago, I was reading a list compiled by SAE as the best engines in the world. FYI, F20C was third in overall ranking, just below the Ferrari 5.5 liter/V12 (now this engine is 5.7/V12). SAE must have some reason, don't you think?
I didn't know Lexus IS200 (Europe) was available with the I-4. I know it is available in Japan (Altezza) with the engine delivering 210 HP. The Euro IS200 (2.0 liter I-6) delivered (when I last saw it)...
154 HP @ 6400 rpm
144 lb.-ft @ 4400 rpm
I was just brainstorming about what the TSX would be like if it had more torque than HP. You didn't have to get all technical about it (although you did appear to enjoy doing so).
As far as stating that a four-cylinder engine is a four-cylinder engine goes (regardless of induction, output or diplacement), I think you're going out of your way to demonstrate a clear mastery of the obvious.
In much the same way, a diamond is just a piece of carbon, right?
A good idea in theory, but the 2.4 is based on a 2.0 design. Getting a 2.8 under the weight of a 2.0 with a V-shaped design would be a neat trick. Probably an expensive one. You're asking Acura to add considerable cost just to please a bunch of people who are going to purchase the TL anyway.
Another statement of the obvious is that to feel better, start using Nm as the unit of torque instead of lb.-ft!
In much the same way, a diamond is just a piece of carbon, right?
Yes, but it didn't have to be as complicated as to get down to the composition and metallurgy of the engine. All you had to read was the word that you typed ,turbo charged "four".
Back to business. Okay, point taken about the breadth of torque over, say, 6000RPM. So, set the redline at 5000RPM, let the torque peak early and plateau (ala VW's 1.8T), and whatever additional HP you get as revs climb is a bonus.
Actually, I'm not sure I see the value of continued debate (?) on this tangent. And before you make a point of stating that I was the one who initiated it (admit it, you'd love to), let's agree to put it to rest.
Swapping the torque (lb.-ft: sorry, I couldn't resist) and HP numbers was just an (admitedly goofy) idea that was posted only as a "wondering aloud" excersise, and not intended to be a point of contention.
I do appreciate your effort, though!
Also, any car can be improved. But, it smacks of unfairness and hypocrisy to dismiss the tsx because it lacks something like LSD or an i6, which are both probably missing in the cars driven by most posters here, without giving a fair review based on an experienced test drive of the features the car possesses.
The Turbo-charging changes the scenario altogether. It should no more be considered as a mere 4-cylinder anymore. It behaves like a powerful V8 engine, changing the dynamics completely.
Incidentally, the rally 2.0L turbo Subaru engine, develops so much low-end torque that without AWD, it would not be tractable. It blasts to 60mph in something like 3.6secs.
Later...AH
M
Now, let's look at this from a different angle. There are a number of quite desirable cars that would get whipped in a drag race with the TSX. Even some "competitors" that cost more would not go as quickly. In addition, the vast majority of cars on the road will not do 0-60 in 7 seconds. For all of us in here who like to zip out in front of everyone we pull up next to at stop lights (that includes me), in a TSX we would be able to beat them 9 out of 10 times because the TSX really is faster. We can probably add another 7% for all the people who don't realize they're competitors in a drag race.
In the grand scheme of things, a 0-60 time in the 7s is really pretty darn good for a car between 25 and 30k. If it weren't for the trend set by the new Nissan 3.5L V6 cars, the new Accord V6, and, in some degree, by the Mazda 6 V6 (all very new), we'd probably be talking about, "how incredible the TSX's acceleration is" instead of complaining about it.
Okay, now somebody prove me wrong
You can't compare value or performance between cars from different eras. Many so-called economy cars now can outperform so-called high-performance cars from 10 years ago.
If you move to a TSX from maybe a previous generation 4-cylinder Camry or Accord, it might seem peppy. The current 4-cylinder Accord feels more peppy than the TSX at lower city speeds, since the torque output from both engines are similar (161 lbs/ft for the Accord with regular fuel vs 166 lbs/ft for the TSX with premium fuel) with the Accord carting along almost 200 less pounds. Moving from a reasonably high-powered vehicle like the TL-s or even the TL, the TSX would appear positively anaemic. Nothing to do with the power output from the engine, which for its size is excellent......everything to do with the weight of this heavy car. This 4-cylinder engine with 200hp and 166lbs/ft of Torque, is lugging along the same weight as the Honda Accord V6 which has 240HP and 212lbs/ft of Torque.
Acura dealers are tongue-tied when told about the cheaper V6 Honda Accord's turbine-like powerplant (with 0.6L additional displacement when compared to the TSX), and our local dealer admitted that they wish the TSX came with at least the Accord's V6 engine. Sales are definitely softer than expected, after all the built up hype. Going by the way they talk, I am pretty sure that good deals (well below MSRP) are right around the corner, for the TSX. For comparison, cars like the Acura MDX, Honda Odyssey, Honda Pilot, S2000 etc., are selling at or near MSRP, even several years after their introduction, which does not bode well for the TSX. Especially if the dealers start wheeling and dealing on such a low-volume new product, within weeks of its introduction. JMHO.
Later...AH
I guess none of you would buy a 525i or a 325i. They are all slower than the TSX. What about a GS300? Or maybe a Passat W8. I mean if all you judge your cars by is 0-60 then you should by durn happy just picking up a SR-T Neon.
While I think the cheaper and more powerful competition (Accord V6, Mazda 6s, and Altima 3.5) will damp demand, the extremely modest production goals for the TSX, along with fairly aggressive advertising, will keep supply down and make deep discounting unlikely. I'd see it selling for MSRP through the summer, with some $500-off deals becoming common next fall. Unless Acura raises production, I'd don't see near-invoice happening anytime in the forseeable future.
So if the TSX is what you want, I just don't see a huge advantage in waiting. Heck the total margin for the car is only $2200, so even a $500+invoice deal isn't a huge discount.
As someone else has said, I think this car is going to be a bit of a halo car for Acura - something to move their demographics to a sportier crowd and get BMW, MB, Audi, Volvo, and Saab customers into their showrooms. With the rumored new TL, maybe Acura is finally getting off their duff and realize that they are well positioned to go after the allusive "reliable Japanese BMW" target that various folks take a run at now and then. (At least as well positioned as any FWD-oriented car company can be.) So someone who goes in and looks at a TSX now and decides it is too small and slow, will at least not lump Acura with cars like the RL and perhaps decide to keep Acura on their radar screen.
At 15K production and with what looks to be fairly high production costs, I don't see how Acura is even going to recoup their investment in marketing and emissions certification. So I don't see profit as a huge goal for this car with Acura. It is more like they're testing the waters to see if the North American market can look past the 4-cyl and smaller size and buy into a more Euro-like car.
- Mark
"C@D got 7.5 sec out of the regular Accord 5 speed and 7.9 in the street start. I don't remember reading anywhere where they said they had to abuse the car. Why would they have to abuse the TSX's drivetrain since the torque peaks are in the same place. It's a lame argument that has no basis in fact."
Actually, it's entirely factual. Let's look at the two engines.Accord 2.4l: 160hp @ 5500rpm, 161ft-lbs @ 4500rpm, 26/34mpg
Is the difference obvious yet? Horsepower is a measure of torque at a given RPM.TSX 2.4l: 200hp @ 6800rpm, 166ft-lbs @ 4500rpm, 21/29mpg
hp = torque * RPM / 5252
So, assuming a constant torque, horsepower would go up the higher you rev. However, most engines loose torque beyond a certain point, and that's why horsepower is also lost beyond that point. The horsepower peak shows us where the torque decreases faster than RPMs rise.
The TSX engine continues making torque from 5500rpm to 6800rpm whereas the Accord engine does not.
At 5500rpms, the Accord 2.4l engine is making 152.7ft-lbs of torque- falling from it's 161ft-lbs peak. The TSX, on the other hand, makes 154.5ft-lbs at 6800rpm, more torque than the Accord engine makes at 5500rpm! That is why the TSX makes 200 (40 more) peak horsepower- it can make torque higher in its rev range. At 4500rpm, the TSX makes only 4 more horsepower than the Accord. The only major difference in power between these engines is BEYOND 5500rpm. Until that point, the engines make the same amount of power, only the TSX weights about 250lbs more.
That is why the TSX would be much slower if it is not revved, and faster only if it is revved. That is why all the claims of having to drive the TSX aggressively to be fast are true, and why lots of people think the car is slow. To be faster than the 4cyl Accord, the engine must at all times be kept above 5500rpms. That's why the TSX is a good match for a close-ratio 6-spd manual transmission that can keep it in those revs. This is why the lower-revving, lighter Accord does not need to be driven aggressively for its decent 0-60 times, whereas the TSX must be. Any time you shift below 5500rpm, the car is acceleration more slowly than the Accord, but it still takes premium fuel. It's completely founded in the facts.
I'm unsure of how the EPA does their fuel economy tests (and how much shorter gearing plays a part), but that 5mpg difference is huge, considering it's premium fuel too! A close-ratio 6-spd should be great for city fuel economy- you can always find the exactly correct gear and shift much earlier.
What it highlights is that more HP is needed = bigger engine ....so in our hypothetic world the TSX would be a good candidate for a V6 engine or a bigger 4 cylinder if possible.
I know they say the platform is supposed to be smaller but , is it really??
The wheelbase is shortened by almost 3 inches (compared to the Accord) but width is almost the same ( within an inch), so *I Think* that is very likely that a V6 could fit in the engine bay...and also think that Honda may known it and they are saving this *option* as their trump card; if that's the case, hopefully it will become a reality specially with earlier reports that some dealers are willing to deal below MSRP.....
Also a cheaper way -although less HP gained but way cheaper than a V6 - would be to bore out the existing engine (from 87mm to 89 mm) while keeping everything else the same ...
That would make it a 2.5L (2463cc to be exact) and would net an average 5% gain in HP and torque.
Something like
210HP @ 6800 rpm and
174 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Good enough to knock off 0.5 sec of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.; the would also separate the TSX from the more plebeian Accord and could be used as a selling point that the TSX is more than a rebadged Accord...
It makes sense that the TSX is more of a slug compare to the cheapest Accord, if it weighs 250lb more than the Accord w/ sunroof/pwr seat.
So unless you rev past 5k rpm often... Look at all that $ you're spending - forget the TSX, especially w/ auto. Really, the Accord already handles nearly as well, & minor suspension mods such as high-pressure shocks alone can pretty much catch up the TSX! Even the TSX shares one swaybar w/ the Accord!
If weight sucks, then the still-roomy 2004 Mazda3 2.3 is the solution, even w/ Mazda's inferior 4-cyl. Besides, neither the Accord nor the TSX offers steering w/ much feedback. Of course, if it was Honda, rather than Mazda3, doing the "Focus II steering/suspension" adoption, then the car would be even better than the Mazda3. Since Honda's got superior engine & noise isolation, while Mazda's better steering feedback doesn't apply when the rack is taken over by Focus's.
I remember the EPA fuel economy rating is very disadvantageous for close-ratio stick, since there's only one "required-mph" shifting points, not rpm! EPA assumes the drivers are bunch of teenage bastards that blast the stereo so loud that they'll be too deaf to hear the engine. That was why VW invented the "up-shift light", & after some statistics, made EPA to agree to assume 80% of drivers will follow the light.
The TSX needs to spin past ~6100rpm before it makes more power than the BMW 325i's engine. That's a rather narrow window, but it's possible to accelerate faster in a TSX. The 325's engine makes more power over the rest of the rev range, and it's torque peak comes 1000rpm earlier. At 6000rpm, it's still making 161ft-lbs of torque.
Since the TSX revs higher (and I'll make the assumption that the engine is durable enough to not wear out from the higher revs, though it does increase wear and decrease mileage regardless), shorter gearing can be used to compensate for less torque. The 325i may make 169hp at 5500rpm (just a guess), whereas the TSX may make 162hp at 5500rpm. However, with shorter gearing, the TSX only needs to go ~210rpm faster to cover this gap. Since the TSX has the range to do this and at its peak makes more horsepower, the TSX does (in my opinion) have the better engine. I don't fear revving- in fact, I like to, and think it helps make a car exciting.
However, the automatic TSX is not geared aggressively, so your perceived lack of torque will be much greater. Whether or not you like this engine all depends on your driving style.
I'm not taking into account drivetrain losses, which BMW typically excels at. Though, RWD losses are usually higher than FWD, so given BMW's expertise here, things are probably even. Drivetrain losses also should take into account the power draw and efficiency of things like the alternator and air conditioning.
RWD power is much easier to put to the pavement, though, since the cars weight shifts onto the powering tires rather than away from it. Don't forget that the BMW has a 50/50 weight distribution while the TSX has a 60/40 weight distribution. During 1st gear acceleration, the powering wheels in each car probably get 60% and 50%, respectively. That's over 300lbs more forcing the rear wheels of the BMW down. This effect is multiplied while steering the car and throttling, as the TSX shares its traction with the steering whereas the BMW does not. Around turns, throttle or braking will always create downforce on the tires bearing the most lateral force, helping them grip. The BMW will always have its lateral and longitudinal traction optimally distributed, whereas the TSX will never. Huge advantage to the BMW here, as soon as the terrain gets twisty.
It almost comes across as if you are a fan of the G35.
Later...AH
Later...AH
Maybe it was due to the auto I was driving, but the TSX engine feels like the fun part is only at the very-narrow upper band. If this engine is in the much-ligher Civic/RSX, then the fun part would be at a much-wider band & outrageously exciting between 6 & 7k rpm.