Acura TSX

himiler · April 2003

With fewer "luxury" features, less mass, a bit more power and a sticker of ~$24K, a LSD-equipped TSX would make a great Accord Type-R.

At least it'd be a car from Honda that I'd seriously consider -- something that is currently non-existent.

robertsmx · April 2003

Civic Type-R with Japanese spec. 2650 lb. (less mass), 215 HP (more power), LSD (got that as well) etc. appears to fit your requirements.

And it might not cost as much as $24K! In Europe, CTR is priced at only 16K pounds.

himiler · April 2003

If you'll recall that Forbes article, there are fewer Acura cars sold today than when the brand was new. I'd say that has the veracity to speak for itself.

Audi, on the other hand, has seen its market share and sales numbers increase dramatically in the same period that Acura has been slipping.

And if you're not convinced that today's Audi qualifies as a "true-luxury" nameplate, then you obviously haven't gone from sitting in a TL to sitting in an A6 -- FWD or quattro.

robertsmx · April 2003

I didn't keep track of Acura's sales number in the 80s. Speaking of sales numbers, when Acura dumped its stripped trims of Integra (RS in the late 90s and LS with the RSX launch), the projected sales were supposed to go down. From about 60+K units that Acura used to sell, now RSX duo is supposed to combine for 30K. No $15K Acura to add to the sales volume. TL was projected to sell at 40K units per year, and Acura ended up selling 60-70K per year (production was bumped up for MY2000 to address wait lists). MDX appears to be selling fairly well. NSX was never meant to be a volume seller (I believe initial projections were only 400 units per year, worldwide).

RL has been a sore spot and needs a revival, so it should be next, right behind TL. TSX only helps keep a fraction of consumers happy, most of them who may have wished for Prelude to stick around, or would have considered CL, now dead. With the current spread of models, if Acura manages to move 160K units per year, that is not a bad thing, because I realize that there are plenty of holes in the Acura lineup to take the sales up a notch.

BTW, Acura sales by year...
2000: 143K
2001: 170K
2002: 166K

As for Audi, FWD obviously didn't hurt either.

varmint · April 2003

Himiler - And a US-spec Accord with less mass, suspension tweaks (instead of power), and an LSD would also make a great Accord Type-R. In fact, that sounds like an Accord Coupe or a CL-S. We all know how well those are selling.

I think people are making the mistake of thinking that this is a mass market car, like the Accord, Altima, or Mazda6. Nor is it an entire range of products, like the 3 Series or A4. It's a niche car for those who are not afraid to rev, who won't go the track, and who want more refinement than the family sedans offer. In short, the TSX is for the other people; the anti-mass market. I think when details for the next TL are released, this car may make more sense as the entry sedan for the marque.

I also think it is something of an experiment. If the TSX fails, Acura loses very little. The car was already developed for other markets and required only a few tweaks to bring it over. If it works, then Acura has a ready-made platform ready to exploit with additional trim levels and equipment. Little to lose. Lots to gain.

webby1 · April 2003

Ineresting feedback since my test drive feelings were the same! The engine seemed to work hard every time I accelerated and reving all over.
Just wondering if we are getting the same car in Canada?

stretchsje · April 2003

Bottomline: BMW 325i, Audi A4/1.8T, Saab 9-3 and TSX weigh the same. Weight distribution would the subject of discussing another point. Don't confuse it with curb weight since your point was about a compact sedan weighing as much as TSX does.

Weight distrubution and curb weight cannot be discussed independently- handling is dependant on both. The TSX, 9-3, and FWD A4 all are at a huge handling disadvatage to the better-distributed 3-series, even though they weigh roughly the same.

Mazda6s is heavier. Would you consider it sporty?

No. Hence I bought the 6i, no options. Even then, calling it sporty is a stretch. According to consumer reports, the 6i has a 60/40 weight distribution with an auto, making the manual weight distribution 59/41. That's far better than the RSX-s at 64/36, and it shows. I test drove both and thought the '6 to be the victor despite its extra heft. As I said, I thought the MR2 easily bested them both, but it was too impractical.

RSX is not a roadster, but I would compare RSX to 325Ci (or 316ti, 318ti, 320Ci etc. if they were available).

No, no! We're comparing similar WEIGHTS here, not seating arrangements. We're not comparing cars, we're comparing FWD versus RWD. The RSX-s' weight is much more similar to the Z4 than the 325ci. WEIGHT must be similar for an accurate comparison, not seating arrangements. You could just as well compare a Celica and a Miata. Similar weights. And, we shall soon see the TSX versus the 325i, and I'm confident I know the winner.

And how exactly would you elaborate on this. Got examples?

I'm trying to. A RWD Miata would kill a FWD Celica, as a RWD Z4 would slaughter an FWD RSX-s under almost any autocross course due to the RWD advantage. Don't like those comparisons due to seating differences? A FWD car can only be better if it has a weight advantage. That's how an FWD RSX-s can be faster than a RWD 330i.

How about the Audi TT 1.8 FWD instead of the RSX-s. This car does not have a weight advantage over the Z4, and because of this, it straggles behind the Z4. A CRX or Integra, however, might not.

That's also why the IS300 is mentioned as a success and Acura is not.

Acuras have gotten heavy, and because of that, their FWD layout has become more of a disadvantage than it used to be. It's added weight is not being distributed properly- the balance of the car is no different than an economy family hauler. A sports (or sporty) car cannot have a drawback of this magnitude.

Lexus segregated its entry-luxury cars and sport-luxury cars, being FWD and RWD respectively. RWD is only required for the latter- which is the same category Acura tries to occupy with the RSX, TSX, and TL-S. Acura is failing to do so because their cars are not designed for it. Likewise, Lexus would fail had the IS300 been built from the Camry platform. The Accord platform simply cannot be made sporty, unless its done by extensive weight savings.

And then, to answer your last question, it still would fall into the "gray area" of sportiness. FWD cars do not drive sporty-esque in that they do not adhere under throttle (and throttle-steering is impossible). Driving confidence and flexibility is lost: fact. However, they just can have high handling limits when lightweight and can be driven fast by a skilled driver.

Wait a minute. Mazda6 isn't a RWD, is it?

Hence I said, "uncharactoristic of a FWD car" and I also said, "still subject to the drawbacks of FWD". And, "...wish I had bought the MR2..."

Besides, whether or not the Mazda6 is RWD or not does not make it ok for the TSX to not have it. It claims to compete with RWD vehicles, the '6 does not.

Brake-rotating is dangerous because you are entering a turn fast. "Locking in" a turn in a RWD vehicle is not dangerous because you start within the vehicles limts and gain speed through the turn. Hence, driving a RWD vehicle aggressively is something much more easily done on public roads, and is a lot less risky.

robertsmx · April 2003

The problem is that the world doesn't think the way you do. If you don't think Mazda6s is considered a sporty car (sport sedan would be a better term), you will have tough time convincing a lot of people to agree with you that it is not. Heck, I have seen the reference of some Mazdas being called 'poor man's BMW' a little too much (including C&D, I believe).

As for curb weight, no, it is possible to discuss curb weight AND weight distribution as separate entities.

And speaking of RSX to Z4 comparison, I don't classify cars based on their curb weight. RSX versus 3-series coupe would be a logical, but just because Z4 could be as light as RSX, don't make the two cars belong in the same class, atleast not until we see RSX roadster. That is my opinion, you may disagree. I just don't see people deciding between a $24K hatchback and $34K roadster as competitors since they have similar weights.

BTW, Z4/2.5 has a curb weight: 2932 lb (5-speed manual/no options)
RSX has a curb weight of 2694 lb. (5-speed manual/base) to 2767 lb. (6-speed manual/Type-S).

stretchsje · April 2003

I wouldn't classify cars based on curb weight either. Get some tunnel vision!

I'm ONLY comparing FWD versus RWD as was the article.

In regards to sportiness, sporty, and sports cars, my opinion is completely supported by other enthusiasts. The Mazda6 is a poor man's BMW in some respects, but certainly not all! Hence it's not nearly as good, either- not even a fake, but an untrue reproduction. Still, I got mine for $17,201. That's half a beamer, and for that price it's defiantely best-in-class.

Look at What does it take for you to consider a car sporty?

Replies there are welcome, I loved that topic, and my view has been changed since its inception.

hunter001 · April 2003

What about Audi?

Sit inside an Audi S8 or A8 and get back. While you are at it, also sit in an Audi All-road.

Only the lower-end A4s and A6s are offered with FWD. Even in those cases, Quattro is an ever-present option. Anything more than the basest models, definitely are equipped with Quattro Torque-sensing and/or Electronic AWD...we are not talking the same story with Acura, are we ?

Later...AH

himiler · April 2003

I'm not one who considers the TSX to be a mass-market auto with broad appeal.

However, the TSX unfortunately lacks the ability to be as exclusive and "special" as its billing would suggest. It has many good individual qualities, but does not offer a convincing argument for success when taken in its entirety.

In fact, I am probably considered to be at the bullseye of Acura's marketing demographic for the TSX, and I was not impressed. If they can't sell it to someone who is familiar with the goodness of Honda engineering and reliability, who are they planning on selling it to?

My TSX test-drive revealed a taut sedan that will play along with an enthusiast driver, but not one that feels completely at ease while doing so. It stands tall in the corners and offers no real tail-out potential. Brake dive is considerable, and the nose comes up in the first three gears. There is no discernable steering feel. For a car that offers the same HP and weighs only ~250lbs. more than my Prelude, it felt much heavier, and rowing the 6-speed was more of an exercise of necessity than the pleasurable experience I had anticipated. The ride is controlled well and quiet. Interior materials are first-rate, if overly busy in design. I am not a fan of leather seats.

stretchsje · April 2003

Nice to hear first-hand experience to break up this other talk.

It's also interesting how Honda stiffened the springs, but used softer bushings. This betrays the enthusiast by ruining steering feel, as you described, which is another reason why this car can be marketed as sporty, but is not.

creakid1 · April 2003

"...rowing the 6-speed was more of an exercise of necessity than the pleasurable experience I had anticipated."

So it might be less annoying w/ auto. As long as the driver doesn't mind seeing the needle swinging all the time, & w/ this smooth slush box & smooth quiet engine, I say let the hell rev. Only if the tranny is unwilling to down shift immediately to a low-enough gear...

"The ride is controlled well, and quiet."

Not a bad car, considering how it can corner hard over bumps COMFORTABLY.

"There is no discernable steering feel."

Steering communication sucks, & that equals boring, no matter how competent the handling is!

creakid1 · April 2003

"It's also interesting how Honda stiffened the springs, but used softer bushings. This betrays the enthusiast by ruining steering feel, as you described..."

I have a feeling that these bushings might be so soft even the Accord might have slightly more steering feedback? Anyone noticed this side by side?

mariobros100 · April 2003

RoberSMX
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
The cheapest way for Honda to have delivered the TSX would have been using J25A from their bin. That is the 2.5-liter version of the V6 family, and delivers 200 HP (at 6200 rpm) /178 lb.-ft (at 4600 rpm) in the Japanese equivalent of what would had been 2.5TL. While I can't speak for size of the engine, I doubt they could have managed to keep the curb weight down enough to justify use of V6.
K24A may have a better future than the J25A since Honda is moving towards I-VTEC, and that K24A may have been designed to use electric power assist to begin with.
===========================================

A bigger 4 cylinder would be cheaper than a V6, because the four will be exactly the same with a bigger bore and/or stroke. The outside dimensions wouldn't change, so neither the engine mounts and their attachments points to the car frame, same for the ancillary components ( power steering, alternator, starter,radiator, computer , etc...), also it could use the same transmissions because the power gains would be modest to jeopardize the working life of these 2 components without any major redesign.
I'll say it will cost an average of $500 or so added to each car.

The V6 would be a better choice , powerwise and marketing wise . The weight issue can be overcome to a degree by using aluminum in the front suspension components , but it would also add cost .
But the bigger obstacle to a V6 (besides the weight) is that it would cost more because being a different engine the mounting points, ancillaries and transmissions would have to be different.
I know they're a mass produced ( Accord and TL) however because you have more HP and its a bigger engine ( parts need to be more robust, so better and more expensive materials are required) it would cost more money.
My guess is that a V6 could add something above $1000 per car ; but it could be worthwhile investment to add some sparkle to the brand.

Personally I'm always been a big fan of big 4 cylinder engines (Nissans 2.4 and 2.5; Toyota Tacoma's 2.4 and 2.7 and Porsche 2.5 an 3.0L (!) ; I think they can produce "cheap" power, but I also have experienced the smoothness of a V6 (Accord and camry)

I think the TSX needs a bigger engine (or whatever is necessary to make more HP and definitely more torque ) to reach the intended audience and cause some sparkle in the market.
The TL is gonna have more power and more options and be moved upmarket so the reasoning goes that it would sell less units( costlier car), so the TSX could fill that void because it has the right size,style and price for that market (3 series, A4 and the like), so its impetrative they make it (car) competitive in the only area that's lacking : Power.

Taking a page of craziness from Wizard/roberSMX we have made a dream sheet of engine choices....hahahaha.

For the V6 think of an intermediate size ; something between 2.5 and 3.0 liters.

Small V6
B x S (cc)
86 x 76 (2648 cc) = 2.6L
redline : above 7600 rpm
220-225HP @ 6300-6500 rpm
190-192 lb-ft @ 3500-5000 rpm*
*Using Dual stage intake from the TL-S

Big 4
B x S (cc)
89 x 103 (2563 cc) = 2.6L
redline: 6800 rpm
215-220 @ 6500 rpm
182*-184 lb-ft @ 4000*- 4500 rpm
*Using Dual stage intake from Base-RSX..

The V6 numbers were extrapolating the stats from the 3.0 Accord ,3.2 TLS and the 3.5L MDX ; the Big 4 stats from the 2.4L Accord and the 2.5L Altima....
Looking at this specs both engines look good, the V6 has more HP and torque but weights and costs a little more; the big 4 is cheaper , almost as powerful ,but will not sound like 6 cylinder.

comments- questions ??

NOTE: To Mr."IMA", please.; Electric motors belong in buses and locomotives with freight, not in luxury or sporty automobiles....

maxhonda99 · April 2003

I ran over to my local Acura dealer after work and took a test drive in a white automatic TSX. Not a bad car, but still do not know if it's worth $27K.

From the test drive:
Pluses:
Comfortable front seats
Roomy front cabin area
Good ergonomics
Great steering wheel and feel
Good feature content-automatic climate control(dual-zone) 6-cd changer, curtain airbags, VSC leather trim, etc.
Great handling-very light and nimble on it's feet.
Felt quicker than I thought it would be considering it's low on torque.
Good visibility in all directions.

Negatives:
Ride a bit too firm due to low profile 50-series tires.
Cheap interior bits-namely the plasti-wood trim(it really does look fake from a mile away).
tight rear seat accomodations
Only LEV-2 emissions status. Geez, it's 2003, I would expect ULEV status especially for a 4-cylinder.
And the biggest negative is the price.
But that may me overcome on the next test drive since I didn't get to open it up on the highway due to rush hour traffic.

bodble2 · April 2003

'cause I didn't go into sportshift mode, but where, in the dash pod, is the numeric gear indicator readout?

venus537 · April 2003

i just read over a 100 posts and i never heard so much nonsense about the car's power. it's more than fine, even in automatic form. this is not some peaky power plant that needs to be revved for power. this car has a broad torque band. also, the auto tranny will not upshift so easily after some miles with an aggressive driver.

as for the comments about an acura salesman saying people are walking away disappointed. yah, right. does anybody really believe honda will have any trouble selling 15k of these a year with little discount for at least the first year?

robertsmx · April 2003

Its not about output. It is about two things.
One... it has a 4-cylinder engine
Two... it is a front driver.

I find it amusing that people looking for something different can't get over the facts. 200 HP in a 3230 lb. car (6-speed would be my choice in TSX) is more than enough for every day driving and then some. It might not give bragging rights, but then, I don't buy cars for that reason. I do see your point, but a larger four banger may not be a good idea. In fact, I would prefer to see a 2.2 liter I-4 developed with shorter stroke, and good for 240 horses.

Electric motors belong in buses and locomotives with freight, not in luxury or sporty automobiles.

Now, that is an uneducated statement.

robertsmx · April 2003

Only the lower-end A4s and A6s are offered with FWD.
Good point, and they carry Audi brand. It didn't take a RWD platform to do the job, AWD helped, didn't it?

That said, if Acura feels the need to go about expanding its lineup, they too can take the AWD route, and appears, they may be heading in that direction too. Let us wait for what is in store.

robertsmx · April 2003

I wouldn't classify cars based on curb weight either. Get some tunnel vision!

I'm ONLY comparing FWD versus RWD as was the article.

This doesn't make sense. It may be just that I don't see a coherence in your arguments. Just make a point and we shall argue on that instead of firing arrows in the dark.

robertsmx · April 2003

However, the TSX unfortunately lacks the ability to be as exclusive and "special" as its billing would suggest.

What were expecting TSX to be? That might help.

vooch · April 2003

Whew, finally done reading...
My take on exclusive and special:
"exclusive" = 15k units
"special" = 27k dollars

For the $27,000 of specialness, I'd rather more performance (RWD at the very least) and less luxury. Even less safety for performance. They just gotta be different.

I looked at one over the weekend and it was at $28.5k with 2 options. The interior looked excellent. But for that money, I'd rather the IS300 or G35 base than FWD 4 with dual auto climate control, (complete waste, just a normal auto climate control is a waste much less dual), leather, roof etc. The TSX is a different animal - its bragging rights, as someone mentioned, is in its content, not its performance.

gee35coupe · April 2003

directed at me. But that was eons ago.

I don't think the TSX was developed to be a race car. It's a sporty sedan. It only costs $27,000 loaded. What RWD car competes with this car at this as equipped price? NONE!! So forget it!!! Like I said before, gonna buy a 525 or maybe a GS300? Not cheap at all and slower. The 325 isn't cheap when you load it as the TSX nor is the Audi or Saab or G35 Infiniti. Acura is gonna do just fine.

merc1 · April 2003

In reply to an earlier post (you guys post a lot)...I drove the TSX on the streets, generally under 50mph or so. Guess I shouldn't have driven that G35 the same day huh?

M

creakid1 · April 2003

"also, the auto tranny will not upshift so easily after some miles with an aggressive driver."

It reminds me. It didn't rev very high in the beginning even when I floored it on an uphill. But minutes later, it did, even on leveled road.

Is there a "sport" button so it can override the less-aggressive shifting program in the beginning?

Even so, the 5 gears are pretty far apart for this engine.

By using a CVT to take advantage of its powerful 6-7k rpm narrow band, it may sound boring, literally.

VW realized that its 1.8 turbo's constant max-torque lacks excitement due to lack of both engine-noise "tone" change and torque-peak sweet spot. So, for Euro market, they added a thirstier, similar max output but peakier normally-aspirated 5-cyl.

TSX's flat torque curve lacks the "satisfying" sweet spot of the torque-concentrated area, but at least it won't have any obvious torque steer, either.

Passat's got anti-torque-steer front geometry, so having an interesting engine won't hurt. But the price to pay is the lack of steering feel especially around straight ahead.

Too bad the TSX also lacks steering feel despite having strong self-centering action.

CVT might be even more boring than auto tranny. When Civic HX CVT was first introduced in '96, C&D found the rpm rise almost INVERSELY related to the mph! More like driving a hoovercraft than a car w/ any road holding. Audi's CVT is way less severe, but might not be exciting enough, either.

maxhonda99 · April 2003

venus537,

I doubt customers are dissappointed but customers aren't exactly knocking down the doors of the Acura dealer in droves. The salesman I had didn't sound like the TSX was doing to great in terms of customer interest. He said they had 6 cars so far. One is a demo and one is for sale. And he said he could get me any of the 3 colors i liked(carbon grey, arctic blue, meteor silver) without NAV system and automatic trans. in about a month. Not just that but he was willing to give me a few hundred dollars off before I even got around to talking numbers with him. That means with negotiation, I could easily get about $500 to $750 off.

jay108 · April 2003

Title says it all. If its smaller than an Accord, that makes it a Civic in my book. Look for big dealer discounts in just a few months. Price is a big problem for this machine.

I'm willing to only consider rebuttal from individuals that actually paid their money for the TSX, my guess is there are very few buyers. Don't bother telling me its a 'Euro Accord' thats just marketing hype from Honda. Nothing wrong with the Civic, my secretary has a new one.

robertsmx · April 2003

Vouch
I looked at one over the weekend and it was at $28.5k with 2 options. The interior looked excellent. But for that money...

If you make your point by adding options on MSRP and then comparing to base models of other cars to draw conclusions, you have already made an argument against your own.

merc
In reply to an earlier post (you guys post a lot)...I drove the TSX on the streets, generally under 50mph or so.

That might be the reason why you felt like you did. Character of a sport sedan can not be evaluated without taking out to open roads and at higher speeds.

maxhonda99
To my surprise, I have already seen two TSXs on the road. I hope dealers have a tough time moving them off at MSRP, so I can get a deal (target: invoice) when the time comes.

maxhonda99 · April 2003

robertsmx,

Of course, we as customers, want a nice balance between supply and demand so you get a discount off of MSRP but also so that the car doesn't depreciate at a un-Acura like rate.

Personally, I wouldn't pay MSRP for the TSX. I would be willing to buy one for about a $1K off of MSRP. IMO, it's just too expensive a car at $27K for a 4-cylinder. The 4-cylinder is plenty peppy, but with only 166lb-ft of torque, it's going to slow down quickly with more than 2 people on board and a stacked trunk.

bodble2 · April 2003

I don't think this warrants a rebuttal. Wouldn't know where to begin.

jaquino · April 2003

"jay108: Don't bother telling me its a 'Euro Accord' thats just marketing hype from Honda."

But it is the Euro/Japanese Accord. The Accord we have here is primarily for the North American market (we like bigger cars after all). If you dont believe me, go to Honda's Japan Site at:

http://www.honda.co.jp/ACCORD/view/

You cant tell me this Japanese Accord is not the TSX. So no, its not marketing hype at all. All Honda did was bring over the Euro/Japanese Accord, did some engine, interior and suspension tweaks and called it the TSX.

I however agree for a car with only a four banger, that $27k price is quite steep, most likely due to the fact that it is assembled in Japan. If they move the production over here the price will drop to more reasonable levels.

robertsmx · April 2003

maxhonda99,

IMO, 166 lb.-ft is plenty for a car like TSX. A lot of people wouldn't have raised this issue if the same torque were coming from a V6. My Accord has only 152 lb.-ft on tap, and with its tall gearing and relatively poorer shape of the torque curve (compared to the TSX engine) it is good enough to be competant. But then, to some, it may not be enough. I guess, without actually driving the car to its potential, I shouldn't draw conclusions, but many of us are, and even those who did drive the car, are using 'feel' to draw conclusions, not performance. Some cars can deceive the feel of speed (I know, my Accord does, even at 80 mph while many other cars feel faster at 65-70 mph on the same road).

hunter001 · April 2003

Your Accord (2000 4 cylinder ?) with 152 lb-ft on tap, carts along almost 300 lbs less than what this "high-performance" car (TSX) is forced to carry. That will definitely impact things. Your argument would hold water, if the TSX engine is transplanted into your light car.

As many people stated earlier, the output from the engine is perfectly fine. More than adequate for most cars. In fact, if the same engine is present in the Accord 4-cylinder (with 250lbs less), the Accord would appear much peppier than with its current engine. The TSX is not a light car and weight kills performance. The dimensionally smaller TSX is heavier than the dimensionally larger Honda Accord 4-cylinder and weighs similar to the Honda Accord 6-cylinder that is equipped with an engine putting out 240hp and 212lbs/ft of torque.

Later...AH

maxhonda99 · April 2003

robertsmx,

Hunter001 makes a good point. I see your point also, since you're coming from a 4-cylinder accord.
I on the other currently have a 2K V6 Accord coupe with 195 lb-ft. That makes a difference. The TSX would have about 30less lb-ft of torque and weighs about the same as my Accord. But of course the TSX has a one more gear in the auto compared to my accord.

The difference between the 2 is why I'm going to go drive the TSX again on a weekend when traffic is lighter. I really want to floor the pedal on the TSX off of some on-ramps onto the highways here to see how well it accelerates. I didn't really get the chance to do that last night due to rush hour traffic.

hunter001 · April 2003

Also, just out of curiosity, if Toyota were to bring on the Toyota Corolla (sized similarly to the TSX), with leather, dual-zone climate control, stiffer bushings, stiffer sport suspension, VSA, HIDs, side curtain airbags, 6-speed transmission mated to a revised 200HP version of the Camry 4-cylinder engine, and called it the Lexus CSX, how would we treat such a car ? Especially if they charged 29K for the privilege of owning it ?

Would all of us keep an open mind, and seriously check out such a vehicle ? I would imagine it would handle really well and have the name of "Lexus" behind it, right ? Just that it is based on a mass market car and "endowed" with FWD but that should not matter if it handles really well, right ?

Or would we treat it as an econo-car based product, with a lot of features thrown in to make it "really loaded to the gills" but not really worth the price charged, due to its econo-car moorings ?

Just curious.

Later...AH

stretchsje · April 2003

...if they added 400lbs to the Corolla to make it 3300lbs, handling would NOT be $27 good no matter what they did with the suspension, so I refuse to answer your question. That is, unless it was intended to be an isolated, luxury appliance.

On the other hand, if you took the IS300, put in a small 2 liter engine (IS200 not available in the US), removed some sound insulation (reduce weight, cost), made all its options optional, and sold it for $22k base, I wouldn't even have considered the Mazda6 (or TSX, CSX, whatever).

hunter001 · April 2003

You are not keeping an open mind, stretch....

You simply should not bring the RWD/FWD argument into the picture. A FWD can be made to handle really well, as Honda has amply demonstrated. So you would not need to base this product on the RWD IS series of Lexus, I would argue.

You are also forgetting the 200 HP (166lbs/ft) tuned version of the Camry 4-cylinder engine and the 6-speed (in this product)....the performance should be worth 29K, especially with the name "Lexus" behind it. Should result in a lot of waiting lists, since it is a "loaded to the gills" Lexus, for a mere 29K, right ?

Later...AH

robertsmx · April 2003

hunter001
Your Accord (2000 4 cylinder ?) with 152 lb-ft on tap, carts along almost 300 lbs less than what this "high-performance" car (TSX) is forced to carry.

1. My Accord (1998 EX-L) has a curb weight of about 3200 lb (not 2900).
2. My Accord is geared extremely tall and the torque curve is nowhere as good as it is in TSX, especially in the low to mid range.

Also, just out of curiosity, if Toyota were to bring on the Toyota Corolla (sized similarly to the TSX), with leather, dual-zone climate control...

That may not be a bad idea if it can hold its own. In fact, sometimes I feel that instead of bringing modified Euro/JDM Accord as TSX, Acura should have used Civic/RSX as the basis for this car. It would had been cheaper and lighter. Expensive features like sport package and xenon headlamps etc. could have been made option to have a starting price tag in low 20s.

American buyers appear to care less about the car as a whole and focus on number of cylinders (reminds me of vehix.com commercials).

jay108 · April 2003

I like the package; but that price, ouch.

I think the Saab 93 is a better deal though I'm not sure about their reliability. These things seem to be much better than the IS300 deal at your Lexus dealer; its inline six takes up cabin space and I think RWD is overated; it could benefit from a turbo-4 or a big 4 like TSX.

Don't forget losers like Infinity G20, Acura Vigor history could repeat itself with the TSX.

stretchsje · April 2003

What is the heaviest Honda vehicle you believe "handles really well?"

In my opinion, it's about 400lbs shy of the TSX, and 600lbs shy of the TL-S. That's what I meant in my post.

Toyota/Lexus couldn't build a performance car based on the Corolla if they added weight. If they managed to keep the car to 2800-2900lbs, that's an entirely different story.

stretchsje · April 2003

...that mid-size cars should be based on an advanced, sporty chassis "detuned" to be family haulers rather than developing a family hauler chassis and attempting to make it worthwhile in a sporty car. It just doesn't work.

Honda USED to use this philosophy, at least with suspensions- the Civic had double wishbones all around from the Integra! Now the RSX is held back by the Civic's strut setup.

The TSX is based on the Accord platform. In my dream world, the TSX would get a TRUE sport-tuned chassis (RWD or AWD, transversely mounted engine, good weight distribution), and the Accord would be based on that chassis in the following revision.

OK, probably not the Accord. That's not a performance vehicle; it doesn't need either RWD or AWD. Only performance vehicles do, and that's what Acura claims to make. The TSX should share a chassis with the Accord Coupe, not the appliance-like Sedan. The Accord coupe shouldn't be called the Accord coupe, either, it should be called the Prelude, based on the TSX chassis, which is RWD/AWD.

This way the Acura 4-dr, luxury-sport TSX is always more advanced than the less refined Honda Prelude, but technology trickles down to the Prelude with every revision.

That's my dream world, and Honda couldn't be further from it.

hunter001 · April 2003

1. My Accord (1998 EX-L) has a curb weight of about 3200 lb (not 2900).

Just checked Edmunds and it lists the weight of the 1998 Accord EX 4-cylinder as 3020lbs (approximately 200lbs less than the figure you quoted). Are we playing with these numbers to make our points stick ?? The current 4-cylinder Accord EX (which is heavier than the previous generation) with Leather, weighs around 3109lbs.

Later...AH

hunter001 · April 2003

The weight of the 1998 Honda Accord LX (4-cylinder), listed by Edmunds is 2987lbs.

The weight of the 1998 Honda Accord DX is 2888lbs.

Later...AH

stretchsje · April 2003

The Integra coupe was roughly 2650lbs; the sedan was 2750lbs.

The TSX replaced the latter at about 3300lbs, give or take depending on your transmission choice.

This is EXACTLY why those expecting a great-handling Honda vehicle will not get that.

nicdmx · April 2003

No rebuttal needed? Your post isn't needed since it seems to me you really haven't even seen the car in person.

robertsmx · April 2003

stretchsje
What is the heaviest Honda vehicle you believe "handles really well?"

The best handling Hondas,
European Accord Type-R (about 3050 lb.): This car used the H22A (2157 cc/I-4) from Prelude, tuned to produce 210 HP/158 lb.-ft mated to only 5-speed manual transmission.
JDM Accord Euro-R (about 3050 lb.): This car uses K20A (1998 cc/I-4) also used as is in the new Integra Type-R for 220 HP/152 lb.-ft and mated to only 6-speed manual transmission.

These two are considered excellent track cars for 10/10 driving. To a lesser extent,
Acura TL-S (3525 lb. to 3552 lb.) and Acura CL-S (3485 lb. to 3525 lb.) handle really well. CL-S w/6-speed was praised by C&D for its neutral handling at the limit, excellent for 9/10 driving requirements.

But hey, if you don't believe TSX is a good handler, a sport sedan, forget it! Theories aren't going to change anything.

mid-size cars should be based on an advanced, sporty chassis "detuned" to be family haulers rather than developing a family hauler chassis and attempting to make it worthwhile in a sporty car. It just doesn't work.
What criteria do you use to draw conclusions? Is it based on the first car that is launched using a platform? Or is it based on some inside revelation that most of us don't know about?

Accord is using a global midsize platform that was probably designed to handle 300 horses or more and detuned for use in cheaper mainstream offerings, besides high performance variants? The layout certainly suggests that. Can you prove it otherwise?

Honda USED to use this philosophy, at least with suspensions- the Civic had double wishbones all around from the Integra! Now the RSX is held back by the Civic's strut setup.

Don't go into a discussion you can't finish. This has been attempted just too many times. You won't be able to prove that choice of MacPherson Struts hinders development of sporty cars. And how exactly did you figure that RSX is using Civic setup and not the other way around? Elaborate.

hunter001
Edmund's number on curb weight sound inaccurate (too low). Unfortunately, 98-02 Accord specs are no longer available from Honda, and if I remember is correctly, Accord EX-L/auto (my car) had a curb weight of 3186 lb (Edmunds lists 3166 lb. for 2003), LXV6 was 3285 lb. and EXV6 was 3329 lb. Heck, Prelude w/auto was about 3050 lb (with manual, just a shade under 3000 lb. non Type-SH).

Honda's website lists Accord LX at 3113 lb., EX at 3166 lb., LXV6 at 3309 lb. and EXV6 at 3360 lb.

That said, note the weight differential between EX and EXV6 models. The V6 appears to add about 200 lb. to the curb weight of the car.

chillenhonda · April 2003

Honda needs to develop one rear drive platform for all its applications.
1. 4-door sedan IS300/330i fighter (TSX replacement)
2. 2-door version of this car to go up against 330Ci (CL replacement)
3. 2-door 2+2 version, lighter weight, lower body for 350Z/RX8 fighter (new Prelude)
4. even lighter, basic interior 2-seater roadster (S2000 replacement)
5. long wheelbase version of the 4-door for 5-Series/GS fighter (TL replacement).

This is pretty much what BMW does with its 3-Series (coupe, sedan, convt, Z4, X3). I can understand the initial development costs of creating this all-new platform, but I think the cost would be offset by the fact you can share this platform across 5 vehicles (maybe even 6 with a Infiniti FX-type crossover)

And, the next generation 3.0-liter V6 with i-vtec would be lighter, maybe not as light as the 2.4-liter engine in the TSX now but lighter than it is in the Accord or the 3.2-liter in the TL/CL.

If Honda can engineer a car with front-wheel drive that handles like the TSX or Prelude, imagine what it can do with a rear-wheel drive platform. C'mon Honda.

robertsmx · April 2003

The Integra coupe was roughly 2650lbs; the sedan was 2750lbs.

Integra was replaced by Integra (FYI, called RSX in some markets). Curb weight, 2694 lb. (RSX/5-speed manual) to 2767 lb. (RSX Type-S/6-speed manual or RSX/5-speed auto). I believe 1999 Integra GS-R had a curb weight of 2743 lb (I can confirm this later since I have the brochure).

The TSX replaced the latter at about 3300lbs, give or take depending on your transmission choice.

Where do you get the idea that TSX replaced Integra? And hey, 3300 lb. (give or take a few pounds) is the same curb weight as the feather light (and smaller) BMW 325.

stretchsje · April 2003

Where do you get the idea that TSX replaced Integra? And hey, 3300 lb. (give or take a few pounds) is the same curb weight as the feather light (and smaller) BMW 325.

Which takes about 160lbs of that, lifts them from the front axle, and moves it to the rear. Plus, almost all the weight is between the axles rather than over or in front of the axle.

Same weight, but much better controlled in a RWD vehicle. That's the whole point. A FWD car needs to be lighter than a RWD car to have the same limits at the front axle. A FWD car would have to be (guessing here) 300lbs lighter to have the same cornering limits as an otherwise similarly designed RWD car. And even then, you can't use throttle to steer the car, so the driving experience isn't as versatile. (I won't make the claim that it's better, because that isn't one I want to dive into- yet.)

Acura TSX

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles