Acura TSX vs Acura TL

varmint · September 2003

Back when Honda opened the plant in OH, they did a comparison of warranty claims. Accords produced in the US actually had fewer claims per vehicle than the same model built in Japan. The notion that Honda quality suffered when production shifted to the states is an urban legend.

Recently folks have begun to question Honda's reputation for reliability. However, all surveys and statistics show that Honda cars (as well as every other brand) are now more reliable than they were a few years ago. How can this be? Because the expectation has been blown out of proportion. Honda went from being a company that sold really good cars to being a mythical company that sold flawless machines that never ever break.

Why do you hear more stories about Honda's breaking?

1. More people own Hondas now than ever before.
2. You're older and listening more intently.
3. This here Internet thingy is a world-wide forum for people to list gripes. You never had that before.

Material quality is a different issue. I've seen evidence that some materials are not as durable as those used on older cars. But I also see this across the lines of many other brands.

uncledavid · September 2003

I tend to agree with you. If you look in Consumer Reports (which, I think, still has the best data on reliability) the reliablity of Honda has only improved since they shifted production of most vehicles to the states. And, the reliability of their models built in Japan is no better than the reliability of cars built here.

As I said, I have noticed a bit improvement in fit-and-finish since I moved up to the TSX (I was an Accord driver for 15 years prior to this car). But, I'm not sure that has to do with my vehicle being built in Japan this time.

One caveat to all of this: If you look in CR at some other brands, the American plants do seem to be turning out less reliable vehicles. The Nissans built in Smyrna, TN do not seem to be holding up as well as the ones built in Japan. The same is true of Mazda.

The ones built in Flint have consistently had a poor reliability record than the ones built abroad.

bodble2 · September 2003

can be misleading. I know of more and more dealers who will offer to compensate their customers if they bring their surveys in for the dealers to fill out. They would offer things like free service, oil change, gifts, or straight cash. I'd bet many people wouldn't care less about maintaining the integrity of customers' surveys and go for the freebies.

uncledavid · September 2003

Consumer Reports bases their surveys on their subscriber base. Dealers and manufacturers have no control over the process. That is why I trust those particular data.

carguy58 · September 2003

I had a 98 Mazda 626 that was in built in Flat Rock, Michigan and now an 02 Acura Cl(Base) that was built in Honda's ohio plant. I have never had a problem except with the Mazda's battery but thats about it. The CL has 14,400 miles on it. No problems. The 626 finished with the 28,300 miles on it. No problems except the battery. I have said this on every board the 1994+ 626 and Mx-6 had the disasterous Ford 4cyl auto tranny that slipped Mazda's quality. The 88-92 626 was
built in Flat Rock and was a pretty reliable car in its day(It did not have a Ford Tranny in it.) If you bought a 5 speed maunal or 6 cyl auto in the 94+ 626 and Mx-6 the build quality was alright.

As far as Nissan's reliability record the Altima has built in America for so long with above average to average reliability.

With Honda's build quality Acura's are more expensive than their Honda counterparts so the build quality would be a little better in the Acura's than in the Honda's.

With interiors I feel like the Accord has gotten a better interior every generation. The 94 was an improvement over the 93, the 98 was an improvement over the 97, and the 03 was an improvement over the 02.

People say that quality has slipped in Japanese Cars since they are being built in America. I think Mitsubishi suffered the worst build quality of any Japanese Car Company when it shifted priduction to the states. The 95-99 Eclipse(RS, GS) had the Dodge Neon Engine in it and was pretty sub-par in build quality. The 93-98 Galant wasn't great either(had problems with the auto tranny.) Since then Mitsu has gotten its build quality back up. The current Galant and Eclipse are built way better in build quality than their previous generation models.

Toyota prides itself on build quality. I have heard Toyota's build quality isn't as good as the Toyota that were built in Japan back in the day. I have heard about rattles in Toyota's cars in the last few years.

tturedraider · September 2003

I just added a discussion for aftermarket body side moldings for the TSX and TL in the Aftermarket area.

bodble2 · September 2003

Reliability and build quality are different animals. Reliabily is a function of design whereas build quality of a reflection of workmanship.

kdshapiro · October 2003

reliability+build quality=ownership experience

stickguy · October 2003

Just saw a new '04TL today. Quite nice looking, with a definite family relationship to the TSX. Sticker (AT, non-navigation) was $33,150., so about $6,200 more expensive. Actually looked smaller (whorter) than the current car, but it was probably an illusion from the styling. Interior was a huge improvement over the '03, and look to have much more room.

didn't get to sit in it, so can't comment on comfort or feel.

FWIW, the interior looked nicer (stylistically) than the new 5 series BMW that was just up the row. Did not care for the interior at all.

akuma · October 2003

if you can afford it that is. the engine upgrade alone is worth about $4,000. think about it. the only difference between a base BMW 325i and a 330i is about 40 horsepower and $6,000. with the TL you're getting possibly 80+ horsepower. then add LSD and brembo brakes (for manual versions), a better interior, dvd-audio, a quieter and smoother ride, more techology and luxury features, and it's a no-brainer.

uncledavid · October 2003

Don't be so sure the ride is going to be quiter or smoother. The TL has stiff low profile tire just like the TSX. I'm guessing that ride quality will lag behind some of the competition. That said, I tend to agree with you that the TL is the better deal.

akuma · October 2003

is the mother of all error. but i will still assume that the TL has superior NVH to the TSX in part to longer wheelbase, more weight as well as new noise/damping and sound-proofing techniques. anyway, as of today there are already people that have taken delivery of their '04 TLs and have shown overwhelmingly positive feedback.

uncledavid · October 2003

Your reasoning is sound. The greater weight and wheelbase may improve the ride, but we'll see.

Can't conclude too much on those who have taken delivery though. How many people who invest $35,000 in a car are going to offer up complaints about ride quality? Heck, over at the TSX board, I never see complaints about ride and NVH. And, personally (as a TSX driver) I think the ride is stiff and nervous.

stickguy · October 2003

Well, I took one out for a short test drive this afternoon (a TL that is). Automatic, the 6 speed is not going to arrive until probably November or so.

It has been a while since I drove the TSX, but the TL was very, very nice. Really quick and smooth. The handling was a significant upgrade from the '03, as was the interior. And, I had tons of headroom, which is something that is lacking in the old model.

Ride seemed fine, even over some mediocre roads. A little stiff perhaps, because of the 45 series tires. I think they should have gone with 50 or 55 series (given the mission of this car), but they don't pay me for my opinion.

Radio was nice too (built in XM satellite, free for 3 months). Must be awesome with a DVD-A disc.

Roomy inside, certainly bigger than the TSX. Trunk wasn't huge, and might be a problem for a family of 4 for a week, but you can't have everything.

Looked really nice in person too.

And, it pulled like a freight train. Anyone who complains about lack of power in the TL has a problem.

Now, I just have to wait to drive the 6 speed (and the Mazda 3), and I will have the option spectrum covered, just have to decide how much to spend.

bodble2 · October 2003

Really?!

fedlawman · October 2003

More HP, longer wheelbase, more weight, forward CG, more soundproofing.

Sounds like a terrific touring car...in a Cadillac sort of way. Thanks, but no thanks, I'll keep my TSX.

silverody · October 2003

I think the TSX is a better value overall but my heart says to buy the 04 TL. My reasons:

TL is built in the US
TL has a V6 and more features

Its very difficult to get past the $6K premium which I don't see merits the 04 TL over the TSX. However, with the state of US econmey and our trade deficit, it makes sense to buy the TL at this time.

Please, this is an arguement just between the TSX and TL.

eandylee · October 2003

Which one is better?

2003 TL vs 2004 TSX

Thanks...

varmint · October 2003

Better for what?

vtec8 · October 2003

I drove the '04 TSX and the '04 TL back to back last Saturday. The TL is hands down a much heavier feeling, solidly planted, quieter car than the TSX. The TSX begs to be thrown around where as the TL wants to be driven somewhat less aggresively. It can be driven aggresively, but when you do, you definitely feel the weight difference. If I were to choose between the two, I would(and am going to) buy the TL. I'm a bit spoiled by the power of the V6. I currently have and Accord EX-V6 Coupe, and I'm just not sure I am ready to go back to a 4-cylinder again.
To me the cost difference is not really a show-stopper. I hope to have one in the garage in the next week or two.

dulnev · October 2003

I drive a 2003 TL-S and recently had a brand-spanking-new TSX to drive for several days as a loaner from the dealership. I had to take a 500 mile long round trip on business in the TSX, so I got to exercise it a lot.

As far as I'm concerned, TSX and TL are not comparable at all. The difference in power is tremendous. I felt it every time I wanted to make a somewhat aggressive move of rapid overtaking at highway speeds of 75-90mph. Most of the time the engine would rev loudly, but there wouldn't be enough power to accelerate fast enough.

Other than power I wasn't happy about the seat comfort and about body integrity. When a door closes with a tin-can sound that should only be made by a $13,000 car, it's a big red flag for me.

fdefulvio · October 2003

That's actually a very good response.

I found that they each are better at different things. You need to decide overall what is right for you. For me, the TL-S was the better choice.

The TSX is more modern in appearance inside and out, but I felt that the TL-S still offered more of what I was looking for.

The TSX handles better, but to me, at the expense of a more harsh ride. The TL-S handles well enough for me, but still delivers a nice ride.

The TSX has a great 4 cyl. engine, but I felt that it had to work too hard. The V6 in the TL-S is very nice. It's so smooth and quiet,but when you want it to go, it really kicks in. I haven't driven the base TL, so I can't say how much better the Type-S is.

I'm sure the TSX has a better stereo, because the Bose system in the '03 TL is not all that good.

You also need to consider the size. The TSX actually doesn't seem as small inside as you would think, but the '03 does seem to have additional room in the back seat and trunk.

The '03 TL is already a year old, but you can get a very good deal now. You may need to search around to get the colors you want. My dealer was offering the TLs at a great price, and doesn't have any left.

blrbnsn · October 2003

I know all the salesman are saying the 2004 TL is selling at full MSRP, nothing less, but does anyone know what the invoice price is? Has anyone been able to buy the 2004 TL for less than MSRP?

silverody · October 2003

Based on one dealer's current inventory in Maryland, they have more 04TL's than TSX's in stock. Assuming they're building 4x the number of TL's than TSX and the price is also much higher, supply should easily match demand.

Since the TSX sells below MSRP around here. The 04 TL's will quickly sell below MSRP IMHO.

uncledavid · October 2003

fdefulvio - The stereo in the TSX has actually received a lot of criticism from TSX drivers. I have a TSX, and have no complaints. But, I'm not sure it sounds any better than the stereo in the 2003 TL.

You're right about the ride. It is stiff, and the body does float over quick dips. I've never liked the ride at all.

dulnev - I'm not sure what problems with seat comfort and body integrity you are talking about. I see both issues as strengths in the TSX. Seating comfort is a personal issue, but the TSX is a lot more comfortable overall than the TL-S (IMO). I did drive the TL-S but found the seats uncomfortable and it lacked headroom. It was also hard to find a good driving position with the non-telescoping wheel. You have to drive with your hands completely out.

The acceleration is another issue. It is nowhere near as quick as the TL, but in the 30 - 70 mile range, it is fairly fast. In Automobile's test, it was faster than both the m6 and IS300 in that range. Not blazing acceleration, but competitive with most vehicles in the class.

My take on all of this: I would do one of three things -

If you want something small and sporty, and your prize handling more than acceleration and ride comfort, the TSX is for you. The TSX is not really all that slow, but you're looking at a 0-60 in the 8 second range. The only other major drawback to the TSX (and to Acura in general) is that the brakes are below average for the class (in terms of stopping distinace, feel, nose dive).

If you want acceleration, handling, and all the gadgets, the NEW TL is a good option. It is probably going to have a somewhat stiff ride a well (low profile performance tires) and so-so brakes (unless you get the manual version with the brembos). But, everything else about it will be top notch.

I would not buy a 2003 TL at this point.

The Accord EX V6 is also a reasonable choice, and would probably outperform a 2003 TL.

billyperks · October 2003

Why are you guys comparing a TLS with TSX?

It makes no sense to me.

midnightcowboy · October 2003

Is an oxymoron!

"The acceleration is another issue. It is nowhere near as quick as the TL, but in the 30 - 70 mile range, it is fairly fast. In Automobile's test, it was faster than both the m6 and IS300 in that range. Not blazing acceleration, but competitive with most vehicles in the class."

You need to take these results for waht they are. IIf you have a manual transmisssion and leave it in top gear, int this case 5 th the acceleration from 30-70 mph will be very slow.

And true if i left my manual shift IS300 in 5th gear from 30-70 a lot of cars could out accelrate me including the TSX. However, I would downshift to 3rd If I want to accelerate from 30-70 mph and the TSX wouldn't even be close. The 6S manual 5-speed has about the same performance as the IS300. I am not sure what you are considering vehicles in its class but the TSX does not complete perfromance wise with any in its class. True the TSX has decent accleration when compared to a normal family sedan, but I don't consider that to be in the sport-sedan or sport-luxury class. While the TSX has many excellent qualities, acceleration/performance is not one of them

Uncle David being a Math Professor you should know that sometimes the auto magazines "lie" with statistics and facts. The TS is geared low as most VTECs are becuase of the low torque. Therefore even in 6th gear (or an auto that downshifts) you are running 20 miles per 1,000 rpm.

Now the TL is a diffenrent story altogether

midnightcowboy · October 2003

Becuase people was a light soprt handling car with lots of perfromance ar=t a reasonable cost.

1> The TSX is light and sporty handling at a rasonable cost, but no performance.

2> The tL is excellent perfromance and has a nice ride but is not sporty handling or light and is more expensive.

The TSX us a more luxurious entry 4-door Integra Replacement.

The TL is a luxurious replacement for the RL and TL with a lot of Techno feature.

My prediction- The new RL will fail going against Lexus 430, BMW 740, Mercedes S. Acura will add some perfromance and refinement and not one will pay $60K for the new RL.

The new TL will become what the RL should have been. However even with the HPT and A-spec options it will not be sporty. To be sporty it needs an edition like the previous lightweight M3 series. A decontented TL that weighs less than 3,000 lbs. The TL- LWS ( Light weight Sport)

carguy58 · October 2003

Honda has to be nuts to do that and they know better than that. I don't understand it Honda has done so well in the US but with their Acura division it has been feast or famine basically. For example in 95-96 Honda priced their new Acura TL at 32K-34K and it didn't do like Honda expected sales wise. Nice looking car and all but people didn't want to pay 32-34K for a TL. So in 98 Honda priced the 99 TL under 30K and it did well. I would go buy an Infinti Q45 at 50K rather than buying an RL for 60K if I had that kind of money. Honda has to price the RL in the 40K-45K range. I don't know what they are thinking pricing an RL at 60K. I guess Acura isn't high on luxury car buyers lists when they go shop for a luxury car.

uncledavid · October 2003

Uncle David is not a Math professor, I'm a psychology professor who teaches stats.

As far as the 30- 70 acceleration is concerned: I find it a bit odd that you are willing to put a lot of faith in published 0 -60 times, but you're also quick to dismiss the highway acceleration speeds (could it be that you are dismissive of such numbers because they do not shed the IS300 in a very positive light)?

Yeah, the shift pattern makes a difference. So what? The shift pattern makes a difference in 0-60 time as well. I'm confident that, however AUTOMOBILE did their tests, all cars where on an equal footing and shifting was optimized to facilitate acceleration times. They didn't keep the TSX in 3rd and put the the IS300 in fifth. With similar shift patterns, the TSX was still faster than the IS300. The TSX is simply a faster car at highway speeds. And, btw, I seriously doubt that AUTOMOBILE attempted a 30 -70 MPH run with the car in 5th.

You might like to tell yourself that the IS300 would be faster in that range. But, the actual test data are not supportive. From 30 MPH to 70 MPH, the TSX is slighty faster than the IS300 and a lot faster than the M6. In other words, when most of us actually need acceleration (i.e., merging onto a highway or passing at highway speeds) the TSX has better performance than your car and many of the other cars in this class. The suggestion that the TSX is "not even close" to the IS300 in that speed range is simply incorrect. The TSX is the faster car at highway speeds.

0-60 times are another issue. The TSX does lag slightly behind V6 rivals, but not far behind. For example, ConsumerGuide tested the IS300, M6, and TSX in manual versions. They got 0-60 times of 7.3, 7.5, and 7.9 respectively. In other words, the difference in 0-60 time between the TSX and V6 rivals is less then a second, and the TSX is actually faster once the RPM climb.

I do agree that the TSX is on the low end of the scale in sheer acceleration for this class. But, I think that is mainly and issue of acceleration off the line. I see that being a product of the all season tires (hard to get power to the ground efficiently) and relatively low torque output at low RPM. But, once the car is moving, it will outperform the IS300 and other vehicles in the class.

Also, the K24 is not a VTEC engine. It is a i-VTEC engine. That is a much different animal. The peak output of the i-VTEC is minimized to facilitate a smoother torque curve. Many of us were suprised that Honda did use a similar system with the latest iteration of the 3.2 V6. I expect that future version of the TL will probably incorporate the i-VTEC system, however.

bodble2 · October 2003

That's just speculation, isn't it?

merc1 · October 2003

You're kidding about the TSX outperforming the IS300 right? The TSX being slow off the line has nothing to do with it's tires getting the power to the ground, those are just excuses. There isn't enough power to get to the ground in the first place. Thats the problem.

M

uncledavid · October 2003

I didn't say that the TSX outperforms the IS300. I said it was the faster car at passing speeds (i.e, accelerating from around 30 mph - 70 mph). That is not speculation. It is published fact. Go look at any comparo in which acceleration times in that range are published, the TSX is faster. The 3.3 V6 in the IS300 is just not very fast in the midranges.

And, I think MidnightCowboy's assumption that AUTOMOBILE got those numbers by shifting the IS300 into 5th during acceleration runs is pure nonsense. There is no reason to believe that AUTOMOBILE kept the IS300 in 5th and all the other cars in the test in 3rd. The IS300 just isn't very quick at highway speeds - no quicker than the slightly lighter TSX.

As for the TSX, I agree that the the main limitation for that car is that there is not enough torque to move the car off the line quickly, and not enough traction to get the limited torque to the ground (which is partially a relection of the tires). Even with likely future upgrades in the engine (which will probably increase HP, and not torque), it is never going to be very fast in the 0 - 30 mph range. But, a powerful four-cyl can do a pretty good job of keeping up with a six once the engine gets going, and I think that is what the numbers are showing.

midnightcowboy · October 2003

"..The 3.3 V6 in the IS300 is just not very fast in the midranges. "

It is a 215hp inline 3.0 liter 6. And with the manual transmission it is very fast in the mid-ranges , unless you leave it in 5th gear.

I didn't say the other cars were in 3rd. I just dsaid the way they run 30-70 or more typically 50-70 accelration tests is to leave a manual in the highestr gear and not shift.

I have tested the IS300 fairly extensively (30,000 miles)and it is quick at highway speeds. It shines from 60-100 mph. It also has a very smooth ride. Much smmother than a short testdrive I took in a Mazda 6S and a TSX.

uncledavid · October 2003

To be blunt, your personal "seat of the pants" tests of your own car are of little interest to me. I also completely discount your conclusion that the IS300 has a "smooth ride".

So, if AUTOMOBILE choose not to shift the IS300 (which I seriously doubt)why is it that it was still so much slower than the other cars in its class? I presume that Automobile also failed to shift the TSX and M6 as well. Yet, both cars had no difficulty keeping pace with the IS300, and in fact, the TSX was somewhat faster. It isn't the case that the overdrive gearing is less aggressive on the IS300, so that other cars are advantaged. The IS300 is simply a slower vehicle.

I also find it hard to believe that those cars would have given performance numbers like that if they were all in fifth and sixth.

The problem here is at high RPM it is HP and not torque that is going to be most relevent. The IS300 weighs more than the TSX and M6, but doens't have a whole lot more power. Consequently, it is slower.

As for the "smooth ride" in the IS300, every consumer mag that has tested that car complained about the ride. I've also driven it myself. I took both the sedan and the sportback out for long rides. It has a stiff bouncy ride, nowhere near the leaders in that class (A4 and BMW). The ride is every bit as stiff as the TSX, even worse with the summer tires. And, frankly, I think that both vehicles are a bit more choppy than the M6. In terms of ride, the TSX and IS300 both rank near the bottom of the class. The only vehicle in that class that might rank below the IS300 is the Saab 9-3.

pat · October 2003

Umm, lately we seem to have forgotten the subject of this discussion...

midnightcowboy · October 2003

So TSX owners are you getting the mialge posted on the windo charts. I noticed a TL that I drove had an average of 13 mpg. I reset the first one an after some medium highway driving recorded 25 mpg. The ratings between the TSX and and the TL are very close. What are people actually getting ?

I personally don't think I would get the rated milage in either the TSX or the TL because of my driving style.

Does the TSX or the TL have TPM ?

uncledavid · October 2003

and an apology from myself to MidnightCowboy for letting that topic get out of hand. We don't agree on a whole lot, but I find him to be an extremely informed indivdual and a nice and polite poster.

As per MPG, I can tell you from my experience with the TSX that is hard to draw too many conclusions from the trip computer (which is built into the NAV system). I've found that it is inaccurate during short trips, but if I check the numbers over a few weeks, it seems closer to reality.

I'm getting about 23 overall in a TSX 5AT. I use premium exclusively and my driving is mixed largely not on the highway and in fairly heavy traffic. I do a little over 30 when I'm on the open highway.

midnightcowboy · October 2003

I enjoy reading your posts and they also are extremely informative. Even though we don't always agree on content or opinions, I respect and appreciate your posts.

Hope you are enjoying your TSX , I think both of the two new Acuras : TSX and TL are excellent cars.

I like the idea of the nimbleness and agility of the TSX and I like the brute power of the TL and Accord V6.

One thing most people don't realize about the TSX is that the new iVTEC really broadens out the torque curve and it is not peaky like the older VTEC engines. Honda even made a change to the new S2000 because even at 240hp out of 2.0 litersit was a very peaky engine and demanded ethusiastic driving all the time.

Both the TSX and the TL engines seem more refined and can be driven easy or sporty.

uncledavid · October 2003

I also have to concede your larger point. It is true that the TSX does not offer the acceleration of other cars in this class. For that reason, I personally feel that the TL is the better buy.

bodble2 · October 2003

hunter001 · October 2003

It was interesting to read the thoughts from folks till now, specifically regarding Japanese built vs American built.

A few points:

a) Somebody mentioned about "unionized American workers". Honda workers are all non-union. They have been non-union all along, even though the UAW tried plenty of times to unionize the Japanese owned plants. The most recent attempt was to unionize the Smyrna, TN plant of Nissan but the unionizers were laughed off the grounds.

b) It is interesting to see that the 2004 Accords being sold in the US, have a variety of final assembly points. The V6 Accords (both Coupe and Sedan) are assembled in the Marysville, OH plant in the US. The 4-cylinder Coupe Accords are also built in the Ohio plant. The 4-cylinder Accord Sedans however are assembled in Sayama, Japan, like the TSX.

c) In all these years of the American built TLs, the only component that has failed in it is the transmission (around 1.6% of them). The transmission that failed, is built in Japan ! I sold my 2000 TL recently and it ran like a swiss watch till the day I sold it (~45,000 miles).

Later...AH

merc1 · October 2003

I agree with the above, the only way the TSX is going to be faster is just because they always do that sort of test in top gear, and they don't shift. Their is no way the TSX is faster than the IS300 is a flat out accleration contest.

M

uncledavid · October 2003

Here is the problem with your arguement: If AUTOMOBILE did that test with both cars in top gear, the IS300 would have been a lot quicker than the TSX. The TSX's overdrive is less aggressive than the IS300, and the TSX has less HP at low RPM . If both cars were in overdrive, then there would be absolutely no reason for the TSX to be faster.

On the other hand, with a more typical shift pattern, it makes perfect sense that the TSX is faster than the IS300 in highway passing. The IS300 weights a good deal more, has a higher coefficient of drag, and has only 15 more HP. The higher torque in the IS300 is not going to help a whole lot at 50 MPH.

As I've said, you can believe what you want. The IS300 is certainly faster off the line, and faster in the 0-60 sprint, and faster in most driving situation. But, at highway passing speeds, the TSX is the faster vehicle.

merc1 · October 2003

The IS300 manual weighs 3255lbs and the TSX manual weighs 3230lbs, there is no way 25 pounds is going to make the IS300 slower than the TSX. So there goes the weight difference part of that theory.

"The IS300 is certainly faster off the line, and faster in the 0-60 sprint, and faster in most driving situation."

That pretty much says it all right there. The guy driving the IS300 will be ahead anyway, before the TSX even gets the chance to try and pass him.

M

tommyijr · October 2003

TSX or IS300, which one is faster in rush hour traffic? Sounds like you boys have a speedway / test track right out your front door. How about it being all about what one likes......I love my TSX, and it usually will pass anything I want it to on the highway......Love you conversations.

bodble2 · October 2003

uncledavid · October 2003

I didn't say the TSX was the faster car. I agree with you that, in day to day driving, the TSX will be slower in most situations. I don't think anybody could dispute that. But, the TSX is faster at highway speeds, whether you not you choose to accept the Automobile's numbers.

The IS300's superior torque will move it off the line quicker, the TSX's slightly lower weight, better coefficient of drag, and similar HP will make it just as fast in the 30 to 70 MPH range.

THe weight difference varies depending on the source. I just checked ConsumerGuide and it had 3230 for the TSX, and 3255 for the IS300 as your report. AUTOMOBILE mag had a greater discrepency (about 200 pounds). Frankly, I trust ConsumerGuide more so I will yield on that point.

Incidently, the IS300 manual was also slower at passing speeds than the automatic BMW 325 in AUTOMOBILE's test. It isn't just a gearing issue, the IS300 has a soft spot in the midrange, and that is exactly where the TSX shines.

fedlawman · October 2003

Don't the taller geared 5 speed MT sport sedans (IS300, 325i, Mazda6, etc) reach 60 MPH in 2nd gear?

The TSX needs a shift to 3rd...

typee · October 2003

With 3000 miles on the clock, our auto TSX has averaged 26.2 mpg in mixed (75% city / 25% freeway) driving, this on 91 octane. We are looking forward to first real road trip soon, and expecting 32 - 35 mpg at steady state 70 - 75 mph. This would be consistent with our prior vehicle, a '95 4 cylinder Accord automatic, which averaged 25.5 mixed and 33 on extended trips, albeit on 87 octane.

Acura TSX vs Acura TL

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles