Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
I think the biggest problem with the TSX offering is that IF you are not going to offer multiple engine choices in a single model, then your default choice better be a good one!
Examples of those with multiple choices: - Passat [since it was recently mentioned] - BMW 3 series - Audi A4
Single, but strong engine: - Infiniti G35 - Lexus IS300
This allows the consumer to make their choice of the power/luxury trade-off that they want to make (or not).
Either give me a choice, or give me a strong engine.
Larger turning circle & narrower rear visibility for lane change than Accord's. Not to mention higher gas bill for the room & power it provides. Backing up w/ this high rear deck isn't very easy, either.
I disagree that 325i & A4 1.8t are also weak low down. They really aren't as severe. Some competitors like Mazda6i is weak in low range. But TSX is weak in both low AND mid range, albeit w/ a superb high range. That's why there's no continuous satisfying long fun rev period, even w/ the close-ratio 6-sp, let alone the 5-sp auto.
People who must have a beautifully-crafted interior but are afraid of Audi's reliability will still have to go for it, though, especially when the ES300's so "grandma-ish". & so will those Accord fans repelled by the new Accord's exterior chip out a few extra bucks just to get another "Accord".
Sportier, tighter suspension than Accord's is almost pointless w/o informative steering feedback. For a sporty sedan, this car is incomplete! Of course, there are lots of others w/ the same problem - just about every VW & Audi these days...possibly including the $100k Phaeton!
The TL concept is probably pretty close to production based on Honda's past "concepts". Expect the air-dry windshield and rearview cameras to disappear however along with the autoshow style wheels and brakes.
Recently drove an A6 with Quattro. Wow. Didn't have the refined handling feel of my old Porsche 944 but it could still get the job done; in certain situations better. Almost bought the car until I checked out Consumer Report's extensive survey on reliability.
While CR places several cars on its "Recommended" list (although no Audi's) it rarely issues explicit warnings about specific vehicles.
Under the section on "Used cars to avoid" (pg. 178) the CR 2003 Buyer's Guide lists the following:
Audi A4 V6 97-98 Audi A6 98 - 01 (Four years in a row!) TT - 01 only (so far)
Importantly, 2001 is also the last year in the survey.
For those wanting more detail on the A6 should see the detail on page 182. There CR goes on to report that the electrical system, the power equipment, and the fuel systems have all been unmitigated disasters in this car, none of which are inexpensive to repair.
So when we discuss that all important "price" of our favorite wheels, let's not forget the total cost of ownership.
"I know why I'd buy a BMW. I know why I'd buy an RX-8. I know why I'd buy a Camry. All these cars have clear missions. I don't know why I'd buy a TSX- its a car full of negated promise, and yet still so good that it can't be dismissed."
IMHO - I'm considering a TSX because it offers something different from the Accords I've driven since 1991 yet is still a Honda product - a devil I know as opposed to a devil I don't. After all, wasn't that Honda's goal with Acura from the beginning - maintain product loyalty when customers were ready to move upmarket??
Another factor that people don't realise is that the TSX is only rated to carry upto 850lbs by Honda.
Cars like the BMW 3-series (including the 325i) on the other hand, are rated to carry around 1100 lbs.
850lbs = 4 decent sized adults with nothing in the trunk. If you toss something heavy into the trunk (after seating those 4 people), you will have exceeded the safe carrying capacity of the car.
I was looking for a replacement for my 99 Prelude. got a 00 Accord. Not sporty. Great for a midsize car, but not at all sporty compared to the Prelude. What could i do? The TSX falls right into place. I stay with Honda (4th one), get something between the Accord and Prelude in most areas.
Further - my next car will be in the $26-30K range. I want something sportier. I prefer a stick shift. My kids are now moving out of car seats but are still small enough to tolerate a smaller rear seat. I drive metro Boston/128/495 and all around NE. There are many cars in my target list (TSX, A4, 9-3, MZ6, S60, V70, used LS8, used 9-5, etc). I will look at and drive as many as I can. I know any purchase will have some compromises.
But what it comes down to is what appeals to me and what I am willing to spend on it. That also applies to everyone IMHO.
Speaking of ownership costs, Accord is a tough car to beat. It has been the king, according to Intellichoice, over the years. With move to timing chain instead of belt with 2003 (except V6), it appears to be getting better.
hunter001 Another factor that people don't realise is that the TSX is only rated to carry upto 850lbs by Honda.
My Accord is rated at 850 lb. as well. One of the important factors in determining payload can be the load rating of the tires, and you certainly don't want to overload them. Honda may be more conservative than others in specifying the payload to give some breathing room and help against potential lawsuits. That said, over five years of my ownership of the Accord, I may have never carried more than 600 lb in the car.
Four men, I hope, wouldn't exceed 700lbs, or they'll be mighty uncomfortable. Figuring even 175lbs on average is a lot- some men surely weight more, but others also weight less. Besides, a third 175lb man probably wouldn't even fit in the back- so that still leaves 150lbs to safely carry in a not-so-huge trunk- that's probably more weight than could fit in the trunk (unless you're transporting jugs of water).
However, most people travel as a family, or with guys and girls. A child would come in under 100lbs and a woman under 140lbs. I think 850lbs is plenty.
Of course, I'm sure some giant fat man weighing 300lbs+ will offset my numbers, but such a person would want a larger car anyway, right?
Just think about what this car will probably see, and 850lbs will seem like plenty.
My Accord is rated at 850 lb. as well. One of the important factors in determining payload can be the load rating of the tires, and you certainly don't want to overload them.
True. In addition to tires, the strength of the chassis to support that load, the capability of the brakes to stop an overloaded car and a variety of other obvious and not so obvious factors, could play a role in the Automakers' payload designation - in this instance, 850lbs for the TSX/Accord and 1100lbs for the smaller BMW 3-series.
Honda may be more conservative than others in specifying the payload to give some breathing room and help against potential lawsuits.
True. But the poundage stated, may be a ballpark figure on what the chassis/tires/brakes can actually support, safely. I am sure BMW and any other manufacturer, would also be conservatively stating what their cars can support safely - as a hedge against potential lawsuits.
Consumer reports is one publication that publishes figures on the payload capacity of various cars. Very rarely does any other publication publish these extremely important figures, that could potentially result in an accident, if ignored.
As an aside, I believe the payload capacity of the large Nissan Pathfinder SUV is around 800lbs, while that of the smaller Nissan Xterra is around 1100lbs.
The payload capacity of the larger Subaru Outback (at 900lbs) is the exact same as the Impreza WRX wagon. The WRX sedan on the other hand (which shares the same tires, brakes and all other components with the Wagon, except the chassis), is rated for a payload of 850lbs.
That number most likely excludes the weight of the driver. In other words, it's 850 lbs plus one driver.
As for conservatism for legal reasons, it is a reality. In other countries these numbers vary considerably despite the fact that the vehicles are the same. For example, the CR-V is rated to tow only 1,500 lbs here in the land of "I'll sue yer bum off!" But in other countries, it's rated for up to 2,500 lbs. And yes, the same does apply for other manufacturers, but the degree of difference is not always the same. Honda tends to be among the most conservative.
What is the GVWR for BMW 325 and 330? What is the tire load rating? What about M3?
Specs for my Accord EX Tire Load Index: 89 (stock tires)
Curb Weight: 3185 lb. (curb weight includes options, accessories, fluids including full tank of gas) GVWR: 4035 lb.
Maximum Payload: 4035 - 3185 = 850 lb.
Accord V6 models are heavier, use the same chassis, but have tires with a different load index. They have the same payload. Same platform used for TL (Type-S w/NAV has a curb weight of 3552 lb.), also rated at 850 lb.
to make a complaint. 850 lbs sound like plenty. I know I'm right at 200 and I've never dated a woman over 130lbs. Unless we have some FAT kids I think I can just squeak by.
Found it at Barnes and Noble. EXCELLENT test drive reviews, performance results and subjective scores for almost all the luxury/near luxury sports sedans/coupes we've been talking about here. The TSX wasn't part of the competition, however, either because it was too new or wasn't considered in the same league. It was more of a Top Guns for $30K+.
So we're nit-picking on how much weight TSX can carry now? Under powered, over priced, numbed steering, etc., and now carrying capacity! Some people must really hate that poor little car. My suggestion is to eat less doughnuts and it won't be a problem! 850lbs is more than enough for average person who's looking at a TSX. I realized that the car is a bit over priced (1K more than I'd expected), but Acura didn't design the TSX for us fat [non-permissible content removed] Americans who demand a larger interior and a V6, thats what the North American Accord is for. The TSX is for the 15K people who prefers a smaller nimbler entry lux car with all the gadgets.
I believe the TSX's high-capacity suspension can handle more weight than the "1 size for all Honda cars so consumers won't get mixed up" - 850lb magic number.
This platform's length of the suspension travel already allowed the Accord's softly-sprung setting to soak up large bumps that bottom Mazda6's firmer-sprung travel! & the TSX's got firm setting, possibly even firmer than the 6's, on that ultra-long travel. SO THE TSX SHOULD BE ABLE TO CARRY MORE WEIGHT THAN ACCORD DOES!
creakid1: did i read your post right? the tsx is not a sporty car. and of course, it lacks commutative steering. how many times have you stated that?
and now you're onto this peaky engine thing. the horsepower and torque curves suggest otherwise as does published test drives. and my seat of pants test drive.
to who ever brought up this weight capacity deal: how can 850 lbs not be enough for this size of car? this is right up there with the txs lacking a power passenger seat. as in no big deal.
as for the tsx weighing to much. first of all, it's not all from the standard equipment, but from a very strong structure foundation. i'm for one am happy honda is going in this direction. it makes for a more substantial car. no one criticizes german cars for being too portly.
This lighter-weight-than-a-6-cyl high-ouput 4-cyl is not cheap to make. & might cost nearly as much as the V6 to built!
& w/ the firmed-up suspension, the car is meant to carve up twisties.
What I really appreciate is that the sport suspension doesn't seem to be lowered than Accord sedan's. & that taut & super-elastic long leg is rare for a reliable(read Japanese) car. That means handling bumpy corners smoothly almost no one else can. & unlike the Euro cars, TSX's steering-feel-robbing soft bushings even smooths out minor harshness.
Being a passenger, your hot date will be impressed, especially w/ the addition of "Lexus-grade" interior & quietness of this refined 4-cyl even when you have to struggle to rev hard. No matter how pissed off you are about the lack of driving fun due to the numb steering. ;-)
It's not an Accord. You won't pass 400,000 other cars just like yours. Also, even with the v6, the Accord is still a family sedan--little sporting character.
I drove one last weekend. I liked the feel and the standard features. It has most of what I like about my GS400. No other car in the price class has both the features, reliability or exclusitivity.
I won't do the Mazda 6s because they're owned by Ford. I won't do the Saab 9-3 because they're owned by GM. Get the picture? The only other car I'm looking at now is the WRX. Basically I'd be giving up creature comforts for much greater performance and marginally less reliability. We'll see in a couple of months.TC
Seems like TSX is the only car for you, since GM has a stake in Subaru parent company. Btw. I would rather get a 9-3 then TSX because I like it more and discriminating cars because some manufacturer X has ties with it is ridiculous. IMHO:)
"I won't do the Mazda 6s because they're owned by Ford. I won't do the Saab 9-3 because they're owned by GM. Get the picture?"
So you can take a Dodge 'cause it's now owned by Mercedes?
Ford might be owned by Honda & GM might be owned by Toyota later this decade.
Even a British car magazine rated the Mazda Miata way higher than all the others in a compact-roadsters group comparison test. & the made-in-Japan Miata is the most reliable sports car(per CR). Besides, I think Mazda is only partially owned by Ford.
By several sources. Remember Mazda also makes the Tribute which is related to the Escape. Wanna go there? And they also made the 626 which had it's issues at one time. One model does not make a reliable brand.
I listed the invoice on this forum twenty or so messages previously.
Most dealers are getting MSRP, but there are a few reports on here of people getting offered modest discounts (e.g., $500). The car's only been around for a couple weeks so we need a month or two of sales (or lack of) to establish what the true market is.
While not even the "experts" here on Edmunds really know the future, they seldom seem bashful about making negative predictions about a car they have chosen to dislike.
My totally unscientific predictions: 1. The TSX will be a sellout and remain in short supply, selling at msrp, because sooo many posters assert with such confidence, like they did to the cts, that because of minor issues like "steering feel", weight and capacity, acceleration and price, that the tsx is guaranteed to fail. 2. The fastest growing auto segment is (affordable)near lux models with all the bells and whistles. The tsx has it nailed. The fact that it also is sporty, fwd, reliable, looks good and handles well is a bonus. Winner tsx at 27k. 3. When Honda decides to expand capacity, because they have figured out how to have a better profit margin on the tsx than the accord, they will add more punch to the acceleration, but also raise the price and sell many times the original 15k. estimate. 4. Tsx will set a new benchmark for affordable near lux fwd with good to excellent sporting flair. 5. The new Tl may be more powerful, but it will definitely be more luxerous, possibly than the tsx as acura puts more emphasis on the lux/sport at affordable prices that are a bit higher than accord's. 6. Lexus will redo the es300 (sportier) or bring out a new fwd to blunt the thrust of the tsx. 7. The tsx may not be given a lot of extra power (but then it might). It will probably sell well on its lux features, but some of its lux features may be traded away for more power in order to keep it affordable. 8. Many young professional buyers who are not boy racer types won't mind paying a little extra for the total package of the tsx. Buyers will forgive acura for underpowering the first tsx (especially after a tad more power is added) as bmw buyers forgave bmw for underpowering (with auto)some of their earlier models.
Hopefully no one buys it so the price drops soon. $1000-1500 off MSRP would be nice! I was hoping that the lack of a V6 would discourage buyers but it doesn't see to be the case. The rumors of an addition of a Type-S model for next year better not be true or there will be alot of pissed-off current TSX owners.
and now you're onto this peaky engine thing. the horsepower and torque curves suggest otherwise as does published test drives
Uh, this is a fact. Ample or not, it's still peaky! We've already discussed on this board that at 4500rpm, the TSX makes 2hp more than the Accord engine (fact). It makes its additional power past 6000rpm because it is still making torque (hence horsepower) there. This is a fact! Because of the flat, extended torque curve, the engine makes more power the higher it revs. Most other engines suffocate at higher RPMs, so they don't make more power with higher revs (past 5500rpm). The TSX's engine is, by definition, a peaky engine, while it's sister engine in the Accord is not, even though their torque curves down low are similar.
What is not a fact, however, is that peaky engines are bad. That's an opinion, and one I'd disagree with. I like peaky engines, and am particularly fond of most Honda engines. A peaky engine is good when it is still adequate at its low RPMs- then the "peak" is pure bliss. Why wish for dropping power as the engine revs high, as in a "torquey" Altima engine? The complaints here are that the engine is inadeqate at low RPMs.
What I don't like is the car this engine is paired with! This engine would haul the lighter Accord around with authority and be downright thrilling at higher revs, but the TSX is heavier and requires tighter gearing, making the engine's sweet spot feel narrow. As I've said before, the series of compromises in its design show no clear direction.
Funny, a "peaky" engine actually has a "flat" torque curve, and "torquey" engines actually have torque "peaks" early.
as for the tsx weighing to much. first of all, it's not all from the standard equipment, but from a very strong structure foundation. i'm for one am happy honda is going in this direction. it makes for a more substantial car. no one criticizes german cars for being too portly.
Interestingly, there is a difference between rigidity and perceived rigidity. When designing the Mazda6, Mazda did an extensive study on this, and made the statement that the Germans have been experts at this all along. Mazda, upon doing this study, was able to isolate vibrations to the point that sound insulation was able to be reduced by 50%. That is an example of weight being put to good use- sound insulation is heavy, and the '6 has very little of it. As a result, the structure is stiffer, while the ride is just as quiet as the Accord (except Mazda intentionally made the engines louder). I'm rambling, though, cause while important, I can't make a relavent arguement towards the TSX without looking at its underpinnings first.
Honda claims the TSX's chassis to resist flexing more than a BMWs. Is that extra weight used for chassis stiffening in the TSX? Or is the weight coming from all the standard features and insulation? Consider this: the TSX is based on a smaller (and therefore, we can assume lighter) version of the American Accord, which weighs just over 3050lbs. The Accord-R overseas, with the TSX's same chassis, also weighs close to 3000lbs. The TSX has 300lbs more heft than this even though the chassis is the same.
Again, this is a fact. All else being equal, weight reduces a cars roadhandling ability. Is it worth it? You're free to make your own opinion. I contend that it is not.
In fact, I'm sure the chassis is plenty stiff, and that's great- but that's not the problem I see. 3300lbs is awfully high to maintain a sporty image in a FWD vehicle. The same goes for its competitors, but BMW and Audi both offer alternatives to FWD which changes drastically the way their heft can be manipulated on the road. As we've discussed earlier, most examples of good FWD handling vehicles do come in under the 3000lbs mark, and the nimble FWD Integra, which potential buyers may be moving up from, weighs only 2650lbs!
Was the TSX aiming at the A4 1.8t FWD? Yeah, but in my opinion that's not a very sporty vehicle (with said configuration) either, sexy as it is. That's not the competition I'd be shooting for, and that's probably why A4's usually sell with AWD. Saab 9-3's are slightly slimmer, though some reviews do site its weight as problematic still. At least it's more powerful engine is not heavier and does create mushy handling as the V6 did in the Accord (and as we suspect was the reasoning for keeping it from the already heavy TSX).
But again, isn't the TSX trying to be better than these vehicles, not just as good? Japanese cars didn't become popular by matching the American makes.
I just ordered a TSX from Acura. I was just about set to get an infiniti I-35 or Acura TL...until I drove the TSX. Don't scoff at the 4 cylinder engine until you drive it. AWESOME! Here's the deal on the Price. MSRP comes in right at 27,000 with the destination charge. They were not "willing" to come down on the MSRP. The car has only just come out. I traded in my '97 Acura Integra with 98,000 on it, good condition. Final price: $19,400. I expected to get around $6,000 for my trade-in if I was lucky. My initial offer from the dealer was $21,200. Here's what I found great about the TSX: Beautiful interior with all the toys. In fact, the stereo has 360 watts and is the best sounding manufacturer system I've ever heard. This car is quiet and fast! When I first took it on the interstate, the dealer asked me if I knew how fast I was going. I was in fifth gear (six speed manual) and going 80. It's just that good. Check out the solid sounding doors, the updated technology and you'll be sold. They will sell plenty of these cars. I was also impressed with the safety features: two-stage air bags, side impact curtains and rear side-impact bags. This car is simply a pleasure to drive. Check it out!
Here's another tip for those of you seeking financing on the TSX. Check an ad for internet financing on new vehicles. The lowest posted rate I found was 4.29%. I don't think that was for 60 months. Anyway, when I spoke with the finance guy I told him the rate I "could" get but that I preferred to use Honda Motor Credit. He said they do not like to use internet credit folks because of the tournaround time to get the financing unless it was the only way someone could buy a car. He then said he could get me 4.7% through Honda. I said I could definitely bet 4.5% from a credit union I allegedly belong to. They gave it the 4.5%. I don't know if they would have gone lower, but keep this in mind. The finance person you see after the sale gets paid by the difference in the interest rate he gets you to sign for and the true rate they're getting. That's my understanding of it anyway. I do know this: I've never bought a car where the financing wasn't dropped from their initial quote. Anyway, I hope this helps someone. Good Luck!
I did drive it. Whether the engine is adequate has been much debated here. I suspect for most people it will be. But I haven't heard it described as awesome, at least not in conjunction with this car. My test-drive impression certainly would not merit an "awesome" description. I agree with you that the rest of the car has a quality feel to it that is missing from the current TL & CL.
One of my Lexus-driver family members just took one home on Easter Sunday. He found the 3.9%APR still too high so he decided to pay it off in 2 days. He paid MSRP plus the "mandatory" $95 wheel lock & $195 mud guard.
Since he's only a slow Lexus-RX300 driver, I think he won't complain about the lack of steering feedback & is very picky on interior appointment & reliability. So far he only complained about the lack of memory seat for his short wife.
My impression whole day today mostly riding in the back, only at relative low speed, was the tight riding suspension isn't very comfortable over bumps as if "none" of the suspension's long-travel is being put to use. The soft bushings makes this taut ride, even w/ these low profile tires, feel superficially supple almost like a cheap short-travel Japanese car such as the '82 Stanza or the '93 Camry SE. But it's good to know that the TSX still got 10 times more capacity to be punched through during more extreme situations.
I still have to find out how much of the tight ride will calm down at higher speed.
& on coarse surface, there's a little plastic buzzing rattle in the left rear door interior lock button area.
The rear seating position isn't very comfortable due to the low cushion height & the elbow-forward position to rest on the door arm rest caused by the rear wheel-well intrusion. So the inside door grab handle is also positioned quite far forward accordingly. & Honda tried look intentional by also making the front-passenger inside door grab handle far forward, too, as if they want your hand to rest right on the pwr window switch instead. It reminds me of how ideal it is to keep that handle vertical, like in the Volvo 760, instead of diagonal so it can be grabbed easier w/o a long reach.
For the comfort of the 2 outer passengers that can hardly move very close to the outer sides, the 5th person is sitting on an uncomfortable ridge, on both the back & cushion, w/ NAGATIVE lateral support. Again, due to the low height of the whole seat, headroom is still excellent! But only the knee room is good, not the stretched-out leg room.
& to score high for crash tests, the minimum height for all the head rests are (barely) comfortable to fit the contour of the neck only if you're 6'2" or taller!
But what really reminded me was how much more comfortable the Mazda6's back seat is(also per a Brits car comparison). I remember the rear bench got perfect seating position w/ enough leg room for me(5'11") to stretch out & the 3-passenger seating points can be spreaded out evenly easily. Since I only test drove the 6(i&s) from the driver seat, I don't know how the 6's suspension pampers(or tortures) the rear passenger.
It also makes me wonder if the superb-back-seat G35 Premium also has the ride comfort to match, since CR hasn't released the full test report to reveal if the "stiff" ride comment applies to the regular or sport suspension. So far I've only heard C&D complained about the stiff ride on the G35 w/ sport suspension.
People like to draw conclusion that fits their whim, or so it appears. I'm not an expert, and I don't expect others participating in this discussion to be, either. But we choose to draw conclusions, do we know the single standard that all automakers must follow to specify the payload?
We know it depends on GVWR rating and the curb weight of the vehicle. That means, with 90 lb. differential in curb weight with identical chassis, 6-speed TSX should be rated at 940 lb. compared to 5-speed auto's 850 lb., but that is not the case. Apparently, Acura/Honda has chosen a standard number for most of their cars.
What about tow rating, and the tongue weight resulting from it? Do all automakers include that as well? There are just too many factors and it makes no sense to discuss something without having or knowing an established standard.
Power and Weight
TSX version of K24A is stronger in the low revs, slightly stronger at peak and stronger as the revs increase. With 6-speed, the gearing is tight and short, so Accord I-4 with manual will have no comparison. With auto, additional weight may compensate the stronger output from the engine in the first two gears. Cruising gear is identical as well. On highway, however, the auto in TSX being shorter in third and fourth will help improve passing power, all that would be needed by the drivers who choose automatic transmission.
Real numbers may be published pretty soon, and hopefully with auto transmission as well, instead of all the arguments based on emotions.
A peaky engine is good when it is still adequate at its low RPMs- then the "peak" is pure bliss.
Can someone define adequate for me?
Interestingly, there is a difference between rigidity and perceived rigidity.
Explain.
Is that extra weight used for chassis stiffening in the TSX? Or is the weight coming from all the standard features and insulation?
Both.
Consider this: the TSX is based on a smaller (and therefore, we can assume lighter) version of the American Accord, which weighs just over 3050lbs.
More steel will add weight. More air, may not. So, size should not be the benchmark to draw conclusions. Some weight differentials for instance, Accord DX is about 200 lb. lighter than Accord EX. Accord EX is about 200 lb. lighter than Accord EXV6. You can be sure that the J30A alone is not adding all the weight.
BMW M3 coupe weighs 3450 lb., a good 175 lb. more than BMW 330Ci. You can be sure that 0.2 liters in an engine is not adding to all the weight.
For that matter, consider BMW 525. Curb weight is portly 3494 lb. for a compact car, barely larger than TSX (interior and trunk). Why? Nobody answered this when I asked the question a few days back.
The Accord-R overseas, with the TSX's same chassis, also weighs close to 3000lbs. The TSX has 300lbs more heft than this even though the chassis is the same.
You may be talking about Accord Euro-R. FYI, It comes with only 6-speed manual transmission (so comparison should be made to TSX/6-speed) and plenty of weight reduction by way of limiting standard features and insulation. It also happens to use 2.0 liter I-4 for 220 HP, instead of the 2.4 liter I-4. It has a curb weight of 3050 lb (180 lb. less than TSX, not 300 lb.).
Was the TSX aiming at the A4 1.8t FWD? That's not the competition I'd be shooting for, and that's probably why A4's usually sell with AWD.
My observation suggests most A4 sold are 1.8T/FWD. Very few A4 are sold with Quattro (adds cost and 250 lb.). And most of the few that are appear to be 2.8 - 3.0 which cost $35K.
"For that matter, consider BMW 525. Curb weight is portly 3494 lb. for a compact car, barely larger than TSX (interior and trunk). Why? Nobody answered this when I asked the question a few days back."
I know it's got shamefully small rear seating. I actually thought that was the German's conspiracy to build a "less-than-perfect-car" so Mercedes/BMW/etc. won't have to leap-frog each other too much that the consumers will be "too" benefited & won't need to buy anymore S-class.
Cheaper roomy cars are coming. & BMW promises much roomier rear seating in the new 2004 5-series.
I don't have the specs for '04 model, but then, my point is about weight of the car. Even if the new 525 gains 3-4 cu. ft to qualify as a midsize car instead of being a compact, its curb weight hovers around 3500 lb (3450 lb. with manual transmission). The question is, why?
The 525i/530i is superior to just about anything else in terms of steering/handling/ride/quietness compromise. Even CR could see the clear difference that it kicks the E-class's [non-permissible content removed] in ALL of these 4 characteristics!
Come on, w/o doing some self-destruction in the 5-series's back seat in both room AND seating position, Daimer-Chrysler might take some "revenge" later. I really thought the ridiculously uncomfortable back seat was done intentionally.
Like you said, more air doesn't weight more, metal does.
In '94, my test drive of 525i/530i(V8) revealed how inferior its ride/quietness/steering ratio(slow)/fishtail are, compare to the (old)E320.
But the following generation 528i was praised everywhere over the roomier, more powerful/frugal E320. I am quite an open-minded person, since I used to be a BMW hater.
Compared to a FWD vehicle, an AWD or RWD vehicle would have additional heavy metal hardware extending to the rear of the vehicle. So a comparably sized FWD vehicle should weigh less than a comparable RWD/AWD vehicle. If it weighs roughly the same, there is something seriously wrong with the FWD vehicle's design.
Many of the views that are expressed in these forums, definitely comes across as opinions from "paper experts" who have not driven the vehicles that they are criticizing and base their opinions from reading published "paper specifications". Also, I would wager that some of these fellows have not driven extensively (if any driving has been done at all!!) in any other vehicle other than a Honda and base their opinions on the afore mentioned "paper specifications". That is the feeling that is filtering through to me. Almost like those "armchair generals embedded in the various TV studios, issuing forth 'expert opinions'". JMHO.
Quoting specs and figures can only take you so far in a discussion like this. If someone hasn't driven it, then they really don't know anything for sure about how it compares to car "X" or "Y."
Compared to a FWD vehicle, an AWD or RWD vehicle would have additional heavy metal hardware extending to the rear of the vehicle. So a comparably sized FWD vehicle should weigh less than a comparable RWD/AWD vehicle.
AWD, I agree. With RWD, moving weight from the front to the rear isn't something I would call addition of heavy metal hardware to the extent that makes a car as much porky as it apparently does to some cars, if not all. If Infiniti could do it, why couldn't BMW do the same? (I'm throwing back your example).
What kind of additional heavy metal hardware we are talking about, and how much additional weight is expected? Either way, let us be consistent in calling a car porky based on its weight for size and not dig up excuses.
As for your humble opinion, all I say is, keep this to discussing cars.
While perusing an old Car & Driver magazine, I noticed on pg. 28 of the February 2003 issue, that "the Honda Accord was voted the Japanese Car of the Year by 59 'auto critics, journalists, and general intellectuals.' This is a different car from the U.S. Accord; a modified version of it wearing an Acura badge will go on sale in the U.S. later this year. Second place went to the Nissan 350Z."(quotations in original).
I presume this Japanese-spec Honda Accord is the US-spec TSX. If this is indeed the car that beat the 350Z in the home market where both cars were designed, I would like to know what differences there are between the TSX and the Japanese Accord. Anybody got facts? Or anecdotes? Has this comparison already been described previously in this thread?
I'd have to disagree with one thing...most A4's are sold with Quattro. Anytime I check the dealers lots (3) around here, their entire stock is almost Quattro equiped cars. I guess it could be different in other parts of the country, like in some warmer places. Not sure. I just know I wouldn't get a fwd Audi, the CVT tranny just doesn't "feel" right.
Comments
Examples of those with multiple choices:
- Passat [since it was recently mentioned]
- BMW 3 series
- Audi A4
Single, but strong engine:
- Infiniti G35
- Lexus IS300
This allows the consumer to make their choice of the power/luxury trade-off that they want to make (or not).
Either give me a choice, or give me a strong engine.
I disagree that 325i & A4 1.8t are also weak low down. They really aren't as severe. Some competitors like Mazda6i is weak in low range. But TSX is weak in both low AND mid range, albeit w/ a superb high range. That's why there's no continuous satisfying long fun rev period, even w/ the close-ratio 6-sp, let alone the 5-sp auto.
People who must have a beautifully-crafted interior but are afraid of Audi's reliability will still have to go for it, though, especially when the ES300's so "grandma-ish". & so will those Accord fans repelled by the new Accord's exterior chip out a few extra bucks just to get another "Accord".
Sportier, tighter suspension than Accord's is almost pointless w/o informative steering feedback. For a sporty sedan, this car is incomplete! Of course, there are lots of others w/ the same problem - just about every VW & Audi these days...possibly including the $100k Phaeton!
While CR places several cars on its "Recommended" list (although no Audi's) it rarely issues explicit warnings about specific vehicles.
Under the section on "Used cars to avoid" (pg. 178) the CR 2003 Buyer's Guide lists the following:
Audi A4 V6 97-98
Audi A6 98 - 01 (Four years in a row!)
TT - 01 only (so far)
Importantly, 2001 is also the last year in the survey.
For those wanting more detail on the A6 should see the detail on page 182. There CR goes on to report that the electrical system, the power equipment, and the fuel systems have all been unmitigated disasters in this car, none of which are inexpensive to repair.
So when we discuss that all important "price" of our favorite wheels, let's not forget the total cost of ownership.
IMHO - I'm considering a TSX because it offers something different from the Accords I've driven since 1991 yet is still a Honda product - a devil I know as opposed to a devil I don't. After all, wasn't that Honda's goal with Acura from the beginning - maintain product loyalty when customers were ready to move upmarket??
Cars like the BMW 3-series (including the 325i) on the other hand, are rated to carry around 1100 lbs.
850lbs = 4 decent sized adults with nothing in the trunk. If you toss something heavy into the trunk (after seating those 4 people), you will have exceeded the safe carrying capacity of the car.
Later...AH
I was looking for a replacement for my 99 Prelude. got a 00 Accord. Not sporty. Great for a midsize car, but not at all sporty compared to the Prelude. What could i do? The TSX falls right into place. I stay with Honda (4th one), get something between the Accord and Prelude in most areas.
But what it comes down to is what appeals to me and what I am willing to spend on it. That also applies to everyone IMHO.
Speaking of ownership costs, Accord is a tough car to beat. It has been the king, according to Intellichoice, over the years. With move to timing chain instead of belt with 2003 (except V6), it appears to be getting better.
hunter001
Another factor that people don't realise is that the TSX is only rated to carry upto 850lbs by Honda.
My Accord is rated at 850 lb. as well. One of the important factors in determining payload can be the load rating of the tires, and you certainly don't want to overload them. Honda may be more conservative than others in specifying the payload to give some breathing room and help against potential lawsuits. That said, over five years of my ownership of the Accord, I may have never carried more than 600 lb in the car.
However, most people travel as a family, or with guys and girls. A child would come in under 100lbs and a woman under 140lbs. I think 850lbs is plenty.
Of course, I'm sure some giant fat man weighing 300lbs+ will offset my numbers, but such a person would want a larger car anyway, right?
Just think about what this car will probably see, and 850lbs will seem like plenty.
True. In addition to tires, the strength of the chassis to support that load, the capability of the brakes to stop an overloaded car and a variety of other obvious and not so obvious factors, could play a role in the Automakers' payload designation - in this instance, 850lbs for the TSX/Accord and 1100lbs for the smaller BMW 3-series.
Honda may be more conservative than others in specifying the payload to give some breathing room and help against potential lawsuits.
True. But the poundage stated, may be a ballpark figure on what the chassis/tires/brakes can actually support, safely. I am sure BMW and any other manufacturer, would also be conservatively stating what their cars can support safely - as a hedge against potential lawsuits.
Later...AH
Are they all 6'4"? Wouldn't fit either, so weight is irrelavent!
I guess they can take the Bently instead.
As an aside, I believe the payload capacity of the large Nissan Pathfinder SUV is around 800lbs, while that of the smaller Nissan Xterra is around 1100lbs.
The payload capacity of the larger Subaru Outback (at 900lbs) is the exact same as the Impreza WRX wagon. The WRX sedan on the other hand (which shares the same tires, brakes and all other components with the Wagon, except the chassis), is rated for a payload of 850lbs.
Later...AH
As for conservatism for legal reasons, it is a reality. In other countries these numbers vary considerably despite the fact that the vehicles are the same. For example, the CR-V is rated to tow only 1,500 lbs here in the land of "I'll sue yer bum off!" But in other countries, it's rated for up to 2,500 lbs. And yes, the same does apply for other manufacturers, but the degree of difference is not always the same. Honda tends to be among the most conservative.
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
As clarified above, that number is the amount of total poundage that can be added onto an empty car.
In other words, the weight of the driver, the passengers, the luggage in the trunk - all of it, cannot exceed a maximum of 850lbs.
Later...AH
Specs for my Accord EX
Tire Load Index: 89 (stock tires)
Curb Weight: 3185 lb. (curb weight includes options, accessories, fluids including full tank of gas)
GVWR: 4035 lb.
Maximum Payload: 4035 - 3185 = 850 lb.
Accord V6 models are heavier, use the same chassis, but have tires with a different load index. They have the same payload. Same platform used for TL (Type-S w/NAV has a curb weight of 3552 lb.), also rated at 850 lb.
I don't think 850 lb. has been an issue so far.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Highly recommended.
This platform's length of the suspension travel already allowed the Accord's softly-sprung setting to soak up large bumps that bottom Mazda6's firmer-sprung travel! & the TSX's got firm setting, possibly even firmer than the 6's, on that ultra-long travel. SO THE TSX SHOULD BE ABLE TO CARRY MORE WEIGHT THAN ACCORD DOES!
1,100lbs. might pe pushing it though. Honda/Acura cars are notorious for having under-spec'd brakes.
did i read your post right? the tsx is not a sporty car. and of course, it lacks commutative steering. how many times have you stated that?
and now you're onto this peaky engine thing. the horsepower and torque curves suggest otherwise as does published test drives. and my seat of pants test drive.
to who ever brought up this weight capacity deal:
how can 850 lbs not be enough for this size of car? this is right up there with the txs lacking a power passenger seat. as in no big deal.
as for the tsx weighing to much. first of all, it's not all from the standard equipment, but from a very strong structure foundation. i'm for one am happy honda is going in this direction. it makes for a more substantial car. no one criticizes german cars for being too portly.
& w/ the firmed-up suspension, the car is meant to carve up twisties.
What I really appreciate is that the sport suspension doesn't seem to be lowered than Accord sedan's. & that taut & super-elastic long leg is rare for a reliable(read Japanese) car. That means handling bumpy corners smoothly almost no one else can. & unlike the Euro cars, TSX's steering-feel-robbing soft bushings even smooths out minor harshness.
Being a passenger, your hot date will be impressed, especially w/ the addition of "Lexus-grade" interior & quietness of this refined 4-cyl even when you have to struggle to rev hard. No matter how pissed off you are about the lack of driving fun due to the numb steering. ;-)
I drove one last weekend. I liked the feel and the standard features. It has most of what I like about my GS400. No other car in the price class has both the features, reliability or exclusitivity.
I won't do the Mazda 6s because they're owned by Ford. I won't do the Saab 9-3 because they're owned by GM. Get the picture? The only other car I'm looking at now is the WRX. Basically I'd be giving up creature comforts for much greater performance and marginally less reliability. We'll see in a couple of months.TC
So you can take a Dodge 'cause it's now owned by Mercedes?
Ford might be owned by Honda & GM might be owned by Toyota later this decade.
Even a British car magazine rated the Mazda Miata way higher than all the others in a compact-roadsters group comparison test. & the made-in-Japan Miata is the most reliable sports car(per CR). Besides, I think Mazda is only partially owned by Ford.
Most dealers are getting MSRP, but there are a few reports on here of people getting offered modest discounts (e.g., $500). The car's only been around for a couple weeks so we need a month or two of sales (or lack of) to establish what the true market is.
- Mark
My totally unscientific predictions:
1. The TSX will be a sellout and remain in short supply, selling at msrp, because sooo many posters assert with such confidence, like they did to the cts, that because of minor issues like "steering feel", weight and capacity, acceleration and price, that the tsx is guaranteed to fail.
2. The fastest growing auto segment is (affordable)near lux models with all the bells and whistles. The tsx has it nailed. The fact that it also is sporty, fwd, reliable, looks good and handles well is a bonus. Winner tsx at 27k.
3. When Honda decides to expand capacity, because they have figured out how to have a better profit margin on the tsx than the accord, they will add more punch to the acceleration, but also raise the price and sell many times the original 15k. estimate.
4. Tsx will set a new benchmark for affordable near lux fwd with good to excellent sporting flair.
5. The new Tl may be more powerful, but it will definitely be more luxerous, possibly than the tsx as acura puts more emphasis on the lux/sport at affordable prices that are a bit higher than accord's.
6. Lexus will redo the es300 (sportier) or bring out a new fwd to blunt the thrust of the tsx.
7. The tsx may not be given a lot of extra power (but then it might). It will probably sell well on its lux features, but some of its lux features may be traded away for more power in order to keep it affordable.
8. Many young professional buyers who are not boy racer types won't mind paying a little extra for the total package of the tsx. Buyers will forgive acura for underpowering the first tsx (especially after a tad more power is added) as bmw buyers forgave bmw for underpowering (with auto)some of their earlier models.
The rumors of an addition of a Type-S model for next year better not be true or there will be alot of pissed-off current TSX owners.
Uh, this is a fact. Ample or not, it's still peaky! We've already discussed on this board that at 4500rpm, the TSX makes 2hp more than the Accord engine (fact). It makes its additional power past 6000rpm because it is still making torque (hence horsepower) there. This is a fact! Because of the flat, extended torque curve, the engine makes more power the higher it revs. Most other engines suffocate at higher RPMs, so they don't make more power with higher revs (past 5500rpm). The TSX's engine is, by definition, a peaky engine, while it's sister engine in the Accord is not, even though their torque curves down low are similar.
What is not a fact, however, is that peaky engines are bad. That's an opinion, and one I'd disagree with. I like peaky engines, and am particularly fond of most Honda engines. A peaky engine is good when it is still adequate at its low RPMs- then the "peak" is pure bliss. Why wish for dropping power as the engine revs high, as in a "torquey" Altima engine? The complaints here are that the engine is inadeqate at low RPMs.
What I don't like is the car this engine is paired with! This engine would haul the lighter Accord around with authority and be downright thrilling at higher revs, but the TSX is heavier and requires tighter gearing, making the engine's sweet spot feel narrow. As I've said before, the series of compromises in its design show no clear direction.
Funny, a "peaky" engine actually has a "flat" torque curve, and "torquey" engines actually have torque "peaks" early.
as for the tsx weighing to much. first of all, it's not all from the standard equipment, but from a very strong structure foundation. i'm for one am happy honda is going in this direction. it makes for a more substantial car. no one criticizes german cars for being too portly.
Interestingly, there is a difference between rigidity and perceived rigidity. When designing the Mazda6, Mazda did an extensive study on this, and made the statement that the Germans have been experts at this all along. Mazda, upon doing this study, was able to isolate vibrations to the point that sound insulation was able to be reduced by 50%. That is an example of weight being put to good use- sound insulation is heavy, and the '6 has very little of it. As a result, the structure is stiffer, while the ride is just as quiet as the Accord (except Mazda intentionally made the engines louder). I'm rambling, though, cause while important, I can't make a relavent arguement towards the TSX without looking at its underpinnings first.
Honda claims the TSX's chassis to resist flexing more than a BMWs. Is that extra weight used for chassis stiffening in the TSX? Or is the weight coming from all the standard features and insulation? Consider this: the TSX is based on a smaller (and therefore, we can assume lighter) version of the American Accord, which weighs just over 3050lbs. The Accord-R overseas, with the TSX's same chassis, also weighs close to 3000lbs. The TSX has 300lbs more heft than this even though the chassis is the same.
Again, this is a fact. All else being equal, weight reduces a cars roadhandling ability. Is it worth it? You're free to make your own opinion. I contend that it is not.
In fact, I'm sure the chassis is plenty stiff, and that's great- but that's not the problem I see. 3300lbs is awfully high to maintain a sporty image in a FWD vehicle. The same goes for its competitors, but BMW and Audi both offer alternatives to FWD which changes drastically the way their heft can be manipulated on the road. As we've discussed earlier, most examples of good FWD handling vehicles do come in under the 3000lbs mark, and the nimble FWD Integra, which potential buyers may be moving up from, weighs only 2650lbs!
Was the TSX aiming at the A4 1.8t FWD? Yeah, but in my opinion that's not a very sporty vehicle (with said configuration) either, sexy as it is. That's not the competition I'd be shooting for, and that's probably why A4's usually sell with AWD. Saab 9-3's are slightly slimmer, though some reviews do site its weight as problematic still. At least it's more powerful engine is not heavier and does create mushy handling as the V6 did in the Accord (and as we suspect was the reasoning for keeping it from the already heavy TSX).
But again, isn't the TSX trying to be better than these vehicles, not just as good? Japanese cars didn't become popular by matching the American makes.
Since he's only a slow Lexus-RX300 driver, I think he won't complain about the lack of steering feedback & is very picky on interior appointment & reliability. So far he only complained about the lack of memory seat for his short wife.
My impression whole day today mostly riding in the back, only at relative low speed, was the tight riding suspension isn't very comfortable over bumps as if "none" of the suspension's long-travel is being put to use. The soft bushings makes this taut ride, even w/ these low profile tires, feel superficially supple almost like a cheap short-travel Japanese car such as the '82 Stanza or the '93 Camry SE. But it's good to know that the TSX still got 10 times more capacity to be punched through during more extreme situations.
I still have to find out how much of the tight ride will calm down at higher speed.
& on coarse surface, there's a little plastic buzzing rattle in the left rear door interior lock button area.
The rear seating position isn't very comfortable due to the low cushion height & the elbow-forward position to rest on the door arm rest caused by the rear wheel-well intrusion. So the inside door grab handle is also positioned quite far forward accordingly. & Honda tried look intentional by also making the front-passenger inside door grab handle far forward, too, as if they want your hand to rest right on the pwr window switch instead. It reminds me of how ideal it is to keep that handle vertical, like in the Volvo 760, instead of diagonal so it can be grabbed easier w/o a long reach.
For the comfort of the 2 outer passengers that can hardly move very close to the outer sides, the 5th person is sitting on an uncomfortable ridge, on both the back & cushion, w/ NAGATIVE lateral support. Again, due to the low height of the whole seat, headroom is still excellent! But only the knee room is good, not the stretched-out leg room.
& to score high for crash tests, the minimum height for all the head rests are (barely) comfortable to fit the contour of the neck only if you're 6'2" or taller!
But what really reminded me was how much more comfortable the Mazda6's back seat is(also per a Brits car comparison). I remember the rear bench got perfect seating position w/ enough leg room for me(5'11") to stretch out & the 3-passenger seating points can be spreaded out evenly easily. Since I only test drove the 6(i&s) from the driver seat, I don't know how the 6's suspension pampers(or tortures) the rear passenger.
It also makes me wonder if the superb-back-seat G35 Premium also has the ride comfort to match, since CR hasn't released the full test report to reveal if the "stiff" ride comment applies to the regular or sport suspension. So far I've only heard C&D complained about the stiff ride on the G35 w/ sport suspension.
People like to draw conclusion that fits their whim, or so it appears. I'm not an expert, and I don't expect others participating in this discussion to be, either. But we choose to draw conclusions, do we know the single standard that all automakers must follow to specify the payload?
We know it depends on GVWR rating and the curb weight of the vehicle. That means, with 90 lb. differential in curb weight with identical chassis, 6-speed TSX should be rated at 940 lb. compared to 5-speed auto's 850 lb., but that is not the case. Apparently, Acura/Honda has chosen a standard number for most of their cars.
What about tow rating, and the tongue weight resulting from it? Do all automakers include that as well? There are just too many factors and it makes no sense to discuss something without having or knowing an established standard.
Power and Weight
TSX version of K24A is stronger in the low revs, slightly stronger at peak and stronger as the revs increase. With 6-speed, the gearing is tight and short, so Accord I-4 with manual will have no comparison. With auto, additional weight may compensate the stronger output from the engine in the first two gears. Cruising gear is identical as well. On highway, however, the auto in TSX being shorter in third and fourth will help improve passing power, all that would be needed by the drivers who choose automatic transmission.
Real numbers may be published pretty soon, and hopefully with auto transmission as well, instead of all the arguments based on emotions.
A peaky engine is good when it is still adequate at its low RPMs- then the "peak" is pure bliss.
Can someone define adequate for me?
Interestingly, there is a difference between rigidity and perceived rigidity.
Explain.
Is that extra weight used for chassis stiffening in the TSX? Or is the weight coming from all the standard features and insulation?
Both.
Consider this: the TSX is based on a smaller (and therefore, we can assume lighter) version of the American Accord, which weighs just over 3050lbs.
More steel will add weight. More air, may not. So, size should not be the benchmark to draw conclusions. Some weight differentials for instance,
Accord DX is about 200 lb. lighter than Accord EX.
Accord EX is about 200 lb. lighter than Accord EXV6. You can be sure that the J30A alone is not adding all the weight.
BMW M3 coupe weighs 3450 lb., a good 175 lb. more than BMW 330Ci. You can be sure that 0.2 liters in an engine is not adding to all the weight.
For that matter, consider BMW 525. Curb weight is portly 3494 lb. for a compact car, barely larger than TSX (interior and trunk). Why? Nobody answered this when I asked the question a few days back.
The Accord-R overseas, with the TSX's same chassis, also weighs close to 3000lbs. The TSX has 300lbs more heft than this even though the chassis is the same.
You may be talking about Accord Euro-R. FYI,
It comes with only 6-speed manual transmission (so comparison should be made to TSX/6-speed) and plenty of weight reduction by way of limiting standard features and insulation.
It also happens to use 2.0 liter I-4 for 220 HP, instead of the 2.4 liter I-4.
It has a curb weight of 3050 lb (180 lb. less than TSX, not 300 lb.).
Was the TSX aiming at the A4 1.8t FWD? That's not the competition I'd be shooting for, and that's probably why A4's usually sell with AWD.
My observation suggests most A4 sold are 1.8T/FWD. Very few A4 are sold with Quattro (adds cost and 250 lb.). And most of the few that are appear to be 2.8 - 3.0 which cost $35K.
I know it's got shamefully small rear seating. I actually thought that was the German's conspiracy to build a "less-than-perfect-car" so Mercedes/BMW/etc. won't have to leap-frog each other too much that the consumers will be "too" benefited & won't need to buy anymore S-class.
Cheaper roomy cars are coming. & BMW promises much roomier rear seating in the new 2004 5-series.
I know I'd rather have a high-speed accident in the 5 than in the TSX.
Come on, w/o doing some self-destruction in the 5-series's back seat in both room AND seating position, Daimer-Chrysler might take some "revenge" later. I really thought the ridiculously uncomfortable back seat was done intentionally.
Like you said, more air doesn't weight more, metal does.
In '94, my test drive of 525i/530i(V8) revealed how inferior its ride/quietness/steering ratio(slow)/fishtail are, compare to the (old)E320.
But the following generation 528i was praised everywhere over the roomier, more powerful/frugal E320. I am quite an open-minded person, since I used to be a BMW hater.
Many of the views that are expressed in these forums, definitely comes across as opinions from "paper experts" who have not driven the vehicles that they are criticizing and base their opinions from reading published "paper specifications". Also, I would wager that some of these fellows have not driven extensively (if any driving has been done at all!!) in any other vehicle other than a Honda and base their opinions on the afore mentioned "paper specifications". That is the feeling that is filtering through to me. Almost like those "armchair generals embedded in the various TV studios, issuing forth 'expert opinions'". JMHO.
Later...AH
Quoting specs and figures can only take you so far in a discussion like this. If someone hasn't driven it, then they really don't know anything for sure about how it compares to car "X" or "Y."
AWD, I agree. With RWD, moving weight from the front to the rear isn't something I would call addition of heavy metal hardware to the extent that makes a car as much porky as it apparently does to some cars, if not all. If Infiniti could do it, why couldn't BMW do the same? (I'm throwing back your example).
What kind of additional heavy metal hardware we are talking about, and how much additional weight is expected? Either way, let us be consistent in calling a car porky based on its weight for size and not dig up excuses.
As for your humble opinion, all I say is, keep this to discussing cars.
I presume this Japanese-spec Honda Accord is the US-spec TSX. If this is indeed the car that beat the 350Z in the home market where both cars were designed, I would like to know what differences there are between the TSX and the Japanese Accord. Anybody got facts? Or anecdotes? Has this comparison already been described previously in this thread?
M