| BLACK-BLING-MDX |
Hey guys, I would just like to know what you guys think would be the better car to get and WHY! Please tell me WHY because i need to make this decision soon. I could have posted this in the comparison sections, but this has nothing to do with my MDX, so here i am. Any thoughts will be appreciated by my and i'm sure by other people interested. Thanks!
Also i am returning our honda odyssey, so would i still get a good deal through acura? i still bought an mdx from them... they should treat me well!
So... TSX or Accord.. .why? |
|
|
| jswift2000 |
TSX: HIDs, Better Styling
Accord: Bigger, V6, Cheaper, 240hp
everything else is the same. test drive both on the same day and compare.
Tough choice. |
|
|
| BLACK-BLING-MDX |
| what about the 2004 tl? i read the post on that, but when will it be coming out? i am VERY interested in that vehicle because it is in my price range. |
|
|
| m2pc |
Hard choices, all are great cars. Accord is restyled. TSX is first year model, but should be ok. Want a little more room, get the TL-S
Don't know what your price range is or what criteria is more important to you.
So having said that, your back at square one
:D |
|
|
| jswift2000 |
| 2004 tl is not out yet so I wont speak to that one. m2pc hit the nail on the head - you need to decide what criteria is important to you and then decide what car in your price range is good for you. If you can wait I would wait until the new TL comes out and decide then. |
|
|
| Fireblade6 |
Honda Accord-
Performance- Even though it possess a V-6, when driving it hard in twisty roads and also in extreme reactive conditions, the Honda Accord has extreme understeering and braking is too soft. It is in my opinion it is a good sedan. The Torque on the engine from rest to say 60MPH is good but lacks punch. Roll-on speed on the highway and freeway in passing is excellent.
Amenities- Excellent ergonomics. The seats are very comfortable especially for long distance driving.
Aesthetics- The lines are too soft for me. Accessory choices are not as large as for the TSX. It is too conservative for me. For someone who wants a nice, no non-sense sedan the Accord is great.
Pricing- Fully loaded, it creeps RIGHT up there with the fully loaded TSX.
Acura TSX-
Performance- Even it possess a 200HP four cylinder engine. It is VERY high reving and fast. Acceleration and punch exemplifies an engine built for formula one racing. Small displacement, high revs and powerful- a true marque of Honda racing. Under extreme driving on twisties and also through punishing of the gears on high grade roads to very steep twisties, the TSX is very precise. No understeering whatsoever. The 17 inch alloy wheels are very grippy. I can imagine what it would be like with adjusted tokico shocks and 18 inch rims with strut brace for the front and rear. The harder to punish the engine the harder the engine pulls...reminds me of my Honda motorcycle.. :)
Amenities- To me the interior is as well appointed as the Accord. One thing that is different are the seats...very similar to the MDX...perforated and very sport...making lond distance trip may not be a bargain. Interior is very european.
Aesthetics- This is where Acura is different. Since it is essentially a Eruopean Honda, the feel and looks of the vehicle is SO different than any other vehicle on the street. I like the angularity of the Acura. What is also attractive is how beautiful the vehicle is at night with its Xenon and fog lights on...with the added option such as the under body side, front and rear body kit, it makes the TSX looks EXTREMELY aggressive and handsome. |
|
|
| xlargebee |
| TSX's mp3 player (optional) would be a good plus! |
|
|
| wmquan |
Are you looking for an automatic transmission? The TSX is only "adequate" around town with an automatic. 200 hp, but not a tremendous amount of torque. It's decent on the highway when you get the revs up.
I've been following some of the TSX discussions (e.g. on Edmunds). Most test drives from people do very quickly note that the engine is either a bit weak, or "good enough." No one says there's lots of power, which an Accord V6 will give you. Same test drivers say that the handling of the TSX is as advertised (since the JDM/Euro Accord has also been praised for good handling, and that's before the TSX's sport suspension).
So it comes down to: do you want a more expensive smaller car with "adequate" power, very good handling, and some nice doo-dads like HID's and the 360-watt stereo, or do you want a roomier car with really good acceleration? Both are good choices.
You'll pay MSRP for the TSX, at least for now. Some Acura dealers are also trying to markup the price. Hey, what the hey happened to that claim that Acura was clamping down on their more greedy dealers? Yeah, right.
But here's something else to consider: the TSX without nav is $27k. Depending on your area, you may be able to buy a 2003 Acura TL for about $27.5k. It's the last model year for that TL version. You'd get more power, more room, keep the HID's and the Acura factor (whatever that may mean to you), but the TSX still will handle better and it has side curtains.
All good cars. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Personally, i am confused with the TSX. BMW-fighter?? BMW 3-series don't come in 4-cylinders anymore, right?? FWD vs. RWD?? How is it exactly a BMW-fighter??
Granted the interior is super nice and the shape is best of all Acura models, i still don't see how anyone would spend THAT much $$$$ and get a generic 4-cylinder engine??? Anything in that price range MUST have a 6-cylinder! It does NOT fit the bill as the "four-door" version of the RSX because it is too big and costs too much.
Why didn't Honda put in Accord's V6 engine?? Now, THAT would make it in better company with BMW 325, Infiniti G35, and Lexus IS300...all about the same size and similar driving purpose. In my view, the Acura TL has always been more of a Lexus ES300 fighter because of it's size and similar driving dynamics. With the V6 in TSX, THAT would make more sense in buying it over the V6 Honda Accord.
Screw the handling...EVERYONE needs power, especially if you're buying a sports car. And the TSX is one of those, right?? Or supposed to be one. Handling is great, but no one is going to truly take the TSX seriously with a 2.4L 4-cylinder that can be found in a base Accord or CRV. :rolleyes: Just remember that Lexus IS300 has been criticized by many for having ONLY 215 HP (and a healthy 218 Torque) from it's in-line 6-cylinder engine...it is relatively slow nowadays. Ok...now you have the TSX with barely 200 HP and less than 170 torque??????????
Does the Audi A4 come in 4-cylinder anymore?? If so, then i guess the Audi is TSX only competitor.
Don't understand this one. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Oh yeah, i just remembered...there has been a similar car in this segment (well, a bit less $$$) that had pretty good handling, comes from a luxury brandname, FWD, available with a manual transmission, also touted as a luxury sports car, and...has a 4-cylinder engine (also from a non-luxury sibling).
Can anyone guess what car i am talking about?? It was a major disaster for the manufacturer! It handled well, but no one could get over the fact that it was ONLY a 4-cylinder and slow. And remember, this was at a time BEFORE the current HP wars ("let's see who can get as close to 6.0 seconds from 0-60 mph").
Still don't know?? Hint: Infiniti made it. Yup, the Infiniti G20. If you don't remember it, then it's a good thing for Infiniti. :D Infiniti since that time has learned REAL fast that a true sports sedan needs to have plenty of power...and RWD...to be even considered in the same class as BMW. Lexus felt the same way. |
|
|
| wmquan |
The A4 definitely comes in 4-cylinders, though it's a turbocharged four. The TSX seems to compete with the lower-end A4 (not the 6-cylinder one), the Saab 9-3 (turbo 4), and the Volvo S60 (5 cylinders, aspirated or turboed). To a much lesser degree (because of the price difference) it also competes with the MB C230K Sedan (supercharged 4).
The TSX is the only one of the bunch that gets by on a normally aspirated 4-cylinder. To its credit, that 4-cylinder produces 200 horsepower which is good for a 4-banger. Unfortunately, the torque is a bit lean though sufficient; just nothing really special.
Other more indirect TSX competitors include the Mazda6 and the aforementioned Accord V6.
The G20 had a much weaker engine than the TSX's (145hp vs 200hp, . It was significantly cheaper, though. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
WM,
Remember, back then 145 HP for a 4-cylinder was very good! In fact, back then, the Nissan 2.0L I4 (145 HP) was one of the best 4-cylinder engines...and has one of the highest HP in it's class.
Acura is all about value performance. That is, if the competitors (usually BMW or Mercedes) have a 215 HP V6 engine, then Acura would come out with a 260 HP engine. Or if the competitor all have 4-cylinders, Acura vehicles would have V6. And so on.
Acura is all about having something over it's competitors (usually a bigger or better engine--Honda's forte). The TSX does not have anything significantly better than it's competitors. The Accord's V6 would have been the key to TSX's success! I am sure the interior is nice and well-made...i am sure it's engine is nice too...but, isn't its true purpose a "sports sedan"??
TSX handles very well according to reviews. Unfortunately, almost all of it's competitors are also very good in this department...and some are even RWD.
Acura brandname is nowhere near Mercedes or BMW in prestige...and is behind Lexus. It is probably better than Volvo...Audi and Acura are about the same in my opinion.
So, Acura must have a distinct advantage to get sales...so far, i don't see any in the TSX.
Thanks. |
|
|
| vogo |
I saw a TSX for the first time yesterday (although I didn't drive it). Typically, I would agree with the posters here who say that to compete with the BMW 3, you need six cylinders driving the rear wheels. Certainly this is how Infiniti, Lexus and Cadillac have gone, with mixed success (the G35 is swell).
But I think of the TSX in a slightly different category. It's for people who really love to drive, by which I mean winding through the gears, flirting with the redline, taking turns way too fast, etc. From that perspective, the logic of a light, high revving 4 makes more sense than a torquey 6, even if you are giving up straightline 0-60 acceleration.
Yes, we'd all love to see a RWD sport sedan with all of the wonderful qualities Honda brings like no one else: engine technology, reliability, driver connectedness, and affordability. But that isn't gonna happen any time soon.
One of the reviews of the TSX I saw compared it not to a new Bimmer, but rather to an old Maxima (and in a favorable light). I think there are more than 15,000 drivers who will be happy with the TSX. Buyers who will accept it for what it is, not for being almost a Bimmer.
If I'm lucky, I'll be one of those 15,000 buyers, although with my luck I'll have to wait 11 months to pay MSRP, like I did with the MDX last year. |
|
|
| vicpai |
quote:
Originally posted by BLACK-BLING-MDX
Hey guys, I would just like to know what you guys think would be the better car to get and WHY! Please tell me WHY because i need to make this decision soon. I could have posted this in the comparison sections, but this has nothing to do with my MDX, so here i am. Any thoughts will be appreciated by my and i'm sure by other people interested. Thanks!
Also i am returning our honda odyssey, so would i still get a good deal through acura? i still bought an mdx from them... they should treat me well!
So... TSX or Accord.. .why?
........and STAY AWAY FROM THE THE ACURA TSX like the plague!... It's a Piece of crap! Honda screwed up big time with this vehicle, because it's got a PIECE OF SH*T 4-cylinder engine!!, and no option for a V6. 4-cylinder engines are inherently PIECES OF CRAP! which should only see duty in the CHEAPEST ECONOBOXES (and certainly not in something wearing an Acura badge :rolleyes: - An exception can be made for the RSX, because it's an entry-level/"YOUTH-MARKET", SMALL "sporty coupe") ....A crappy 4-cylinder can NEVER match the LOW-END TORQUE and REFINEMENT/SMOOTH and LINEAR power delivery of a nice 6-cylinder engine, no matter who says what!! .......and Honda is expecting this sh*tty vehicle to compete with with the BMW 330i and Lexus IS 300??....Yeah, right :rolleyes:
Now here's the REAL KICKER: That same useless 4-cylinder engine in the TSX gives about the same fuel economy as the V6 Honda Accord!! :eek: :rolleyes:
So for about the same price as the TSX, do yourself a HUGE favor :D ...and get a fully loaded Accord V6....Leave the TSX for the suckers ;) (one, of whom is born every minute :D ) If you shop really hard, you can get a V6 Accord with Navi for about $26K ($500 over invoice)
It's very unfortunate, because the TSX had the potential and right ingredients to be one helluva great machine (compact=fun to drive, sporty and stylish). In other words, it had the potential to be a BETTER Lexus IS300 (because Honda is the King of "engines" and "handling" ), but they killed it when, they plunked down a 4-cylinder in there :rolleyes:
Hope this helps! :) |
|
|
| vicpai |
quote:
Originally posted by BLACK-BLING-MDX
what about the 2004 tl? i read the post on that, but when will it be coming out? i am VERY interested in that vehicle because it is in my price range.
.....you might want to wait for!!......I've heard that it will have 300+ hp in the Type-S version and around 280bhp in the regular version! Not sure if it will be out this summer or will be a traditional fall release! |
|
|
| Fireblade6 |
quote:
Originally posted by vicpai
........and STAY AWAY FROM THE THE ACURA TSX like the plague!... It's a Piece of crap! Honda screwed up big time with this vehicle, because it's got a PIECE OF SH*T 4-cylinder engine!!, and no option for a V6. 4-cylinder engines are inherently PIECES OF CRAP! which should only see duty in the CHEAPEST ECONOBOXES (and certainly not in something wearing an Acura badge :rolleyes: - An exception can be made for the RSX, because it's an entry-level/"YOUTH-MARKET", SMALL "sporty coupe") ....A crappy 4-cylinder can NEVER match the LOW-END TORQUE and REFINEMENT of a nice 6-cylinder engine, no matter who says what!! .......and Honda is expecting this sh*tty vehicle to compete with with the BMW 330i and Lexus IS 300??....Yeah, right :rolleyes:
Now here's the REAL KICKER: That same useless 4-cylinder engine in the TSX gives about the same fuel economy as the V6 Honda Accord!! :eek: :rolleyes:
So for about the same price as the TSX, do yourself a HUGE favor :D ...and get a fully loaded Accord V6....Leave the TSX for the suckers ;) (one, of whom is born every minute :D ) If you shop really hard, you can get a V6 Accord with Navi for about $26K ($500 over invoice)
Hope this helps! :)
Honda makes Piece of crap Four bangers ey??? Hmmmm last time I checked the Honda S2000 FOUR cylinder engine is one kick ass engine...Oh yeah...its the ONLY four banger in the world today that has the BIGGEST torque per CC ratio. Last time I drove an S2000..the beefy mustangs, camaros, 300ZX and even the M3 has a hard time keeping up...Honda got its name from FOUR BANGERS.. Honda did not get to where they are today making cars with six cylinders and eight and tens...eights and tens and even sixes are Formula Ones. |
|
|
| ImOnlyTen |
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
Personally, i am confused with the TSX. BMW-fighter?? BMW 3-series don't come in 4-cylinders anymore, right?? FWD vs. RWD?? How is it exactly a BMW-fighter??
Granted the interior is super nice and the shape is best of all Acura models, i still don't see how anyone would spend THAT much $$$$ and get a generic 4-cylinder engine??? Anything in that price range MUST have a 6-cylinder! It does NOT fit the bill as the "four-door" version of the RSX because it is too big and costs too much.
Why didn't Honda put in Accord's V6 engine?? Now, THAT would make it in better company with BMW 325, Infiniti G35, and Lexus IS300...all about the same size and similar driving purpose. In my view, the Acura TL has always been more of a Lexus ES300 fighter because of it's size and similar driving dynamics. With the V6 in TSX, THAT would make more sense in buying it over the V6 Honda Accord.
Screw the handling...EVERYONE needs power, especially if you're buying a sports car. And the TSX is one of those, right?? Or supposed to be one. Handling is great, but no one is going to truly take the TSX seriously with a 2.4L 4-cylinder that can be found in a base Accord or CRV. :rolleyes: Just remember that Lexus IS300 has been criticized by many for having ONLY 215 HP (and a healthy 218 Torque) from it's in-line 6-cylinder engine...it is relatively slow nowadays. Ok...now you have the TSX with barely 200 HP and less than 170 torque??????????
Does the Audi A4 come in 4-cylinder anymore?? If so, then i guess the Audi is TSX only competitor.
Don't understand this one.
The IS300 is alot heavier. Plus, the TSX has a 6-speed.
And:
1. The J30 won't fit
2. If they put the 3.0L they will have the same problem as the IS, may have 240 hp and a heavier weight.
3. Would compromise handling.
200 hp for a 3200 lb car is more then enough. Plus it has a 6-speed.
Just my opinion.
:cool:
And the TSX is not a 4-door RSX, they are based on completely different platforms |
|
|
| vicpai |
quote:
Originally posted by Fireblade6
Honda makes Piece of crap Four bangers ey??? Hmmmm last time I checked the Honda S2000 FOUR cylinder engine is one kick ass engine...Oh yeah...its the ONLY four banger in the world today that has the BIGGEST torque per CC ratio. Last time I drove an S2000..the beefy mustangs, camaros, 300ZX and even the M3 has a hard time keeping up...Honda got its name from FOUR BANGERS.. Honda did not get to where they are today making cars with six cylinders and eight and tens...eights and tens and even sixes are Formula Ones.
......if you read my post carefully, you'll notice I said 4-cylinder engines IN GENERAL are crappy. I agree with you, that Honda probably makes some of the finest engines, be it a 4 or a 6, but overall, a 4-banger is INHERENTLY worse than a 6-cylinder, when it comes to TORQUE, REFINEMENT and SMOOTH POWER DELIVERY! In my above post, I also noted that a 4-banger might be acceptable in a vehicle like the RSX (or even the S2000), which are PURE sporty driving machines (and nothing else). However, the TSX is a Sports-Sedan ......A certain amount of refinement and luxury is expected to go side-by-side with the sporty flavor of the car, especially considering that it wears the Acura nameplate!! Like I said earlier, this car had all the right ingredients to make it a real fun AND REFINED machine. It's compact, which translates to excellent driving dynamics (handling). So a V6 (even if it meant a smaller-capacity V6 to save weight - say 2.5L to 2.7L ) would've been far better than a 4-banger! |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Vic,
I think 4-cylinders do have roles in other cars, not just econoboxes. For example, in a Camry or Accord, the 4-cylinder serves to give the "mild-mannered" consumers more than they need. If you note, MOST Camrys are sold as 4-cylinders...and they have been proven WITHOUT A DOUBT to be extremely durable. My '97 Honda CRV went 99,700 miles without a single hiccup, despite towing ABOVE it's limit from FL to Texas AND after many off-roading events.
However, like i said above, this 4-cylinder does NOT belong in a sports sedan costing $28K. It is out-gunned by it's competitors. I think a base G35 costs around that much...and it can blow past the TSX easily AND outhandles the TSX.
As far as Honda being king of handling, i doubt this. NSX is the only sore exception. A RWD car will ALWAYS outperform a FWD car if they have equivalent chassis.
There is NO WAY the TSX will outhandle the BMW 3-series or Lexus IS300, especially the IS300. Most will agree that the IS300 is probably best in it's class in terms of raw handling. BMW is more balanced. IS300 heavy??? From most comparisons i have read, it is the best in it's class (again, raw handling).
There is nothing special about the TSX to elevate it above the competition. G35 will kill it since it costs the same and is RWD...260 HP! And i think Infiniti will introduce the manual transmission into the sedan next year! Uh-oh for TSX!
Thanks. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
WM,
Remember, back then 145 HP for a 4-cylinder was very good! In fact, back then, the Nissan 2.0L I4 (145 HP) was one of the best 4-cylinder engines...and has one of the highest HP in it's class.
Thai,
Just curious, which G20 are you referring to? The ill-fated first-gen, which indeed had a powerful 4-cylinder but didn't handle anything special, or the second-gen, which handled well but was similarly unsuccessful?
I think when comparing it with TSX, we were talking about the second-gen (introduced as a '99 model). That was the "born in Japan, raised in Europe" or some marketing crap like that. Based on the Nissan Primera, it handled well but had a weak 145 hp engine. For the price that Infiniti originally wanted for it, it was pretty close to a discounted Maxima with a more powerful, smoother Nissan V6.
The second-gen engine certainly wasn't that special by 1998; the 140 hp Integra powerplant preceded it by roughly 5 years, and so did the 170+ hp VTEC 4-cylinder.
I think that the TSX has enough power to not be a G20.
But I do indeed agree with you that traditionally Honda tries to make sure that the horsepower is special, and that isn't happening with the TSX. To wit, the MDX had about the highest horsepower in its class when it came out (the 2001 Nissan Pathfinder updated tied it, but those horses got lost somewhere!). The current Odyssey has had great horsepower to make it stand out against the competition, and it got upped a couple of years ago. The TL had plenty of horsepower relative to the competition when it came out, and the TL-S upped it. But the TSX seems to run against that philosophy. |
|
|
| pospos |
From what i know the TSX that they are selling the the United States is the accord everywhere else. We jus never get the better deal here, plus what's up with badged acura and jacking up the price. Even the MDX is a Honda badged vehicle in japan: http://www.honda.co.jp/auto-lineup/mdx/
Performance wise both are a decent car, it really jus despends on how much you are willing to spend and what kinda of luxury you want. |
|
|
| BLACK-BLING-MDX |
| Thanks for all your replies guys! I really enjoyed reading them. Thanks vicpai for ur passionate hate of "4-bangers". I agree with you, I want a V6. As of now, it looks like either the Honda Accord, 2003 TL or wait for the 2004... but i need a car soon! :( any other car companies coming out with 2004s in the spring/summer? |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
I would definitely wait for the '04 TL or current Accord V6. The '03 TL STILL has the potential tranny problem.
Anyway, with sports cars, the longer you wait the better. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by BLACK-BLING-MDX
As of now, it looks like either the Honda Accord, 2003 TL or wait for the 2004... but i need a car soon! :( any other car companies coming out with 2004s in the spring/summer?
Would you look at a Nissan Altima 3.5 SE? It's not a true sports sedan but it's closer to one than the Accord. Bigger engine than the Accord V6, and gobs more power in the form of torque (so it's faster). Produces more horsepower in the powerband than the smaller Accord V6. Sweet engine, really. You can get it with xenons too, and it's relatively cheap (you can get it really well-loaded for a hair above $25k). |
|
|
| BLACK-BLING-MDX |
| It is also a Nissan... :p ... naah for real... i wanna stay in the honda family... we'll get a good deal on an accord or tl, so it doesnt matter... |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by BLACK-BLING-MDX
It is also a Nissan... :p ... naah for real... i wanna stay in the honda family... we'll get a good deal on an accord or tl, so it doesnt matter...
Understood.
But just to show you what you're missing in engine power, here's a curve comparing the smaller Accord V6 to the Altima's potent V6. Didn't Thai say there's no replacement for displacement? |
|
|
| jedi_gras |
quote:
Originally posted by pospos
From what i know the TSX that they are selling the the United States is the accord everywhere else. We jus never get the better deal here, plus what's up with badged acura and jacking up the price. Even the MDX is a Honda badged vehicle in japan: http://www.honda.co.jp/auto-lineup/mdx/
Performance wise both are a decent car, it really jus despends on how much you are willing to spend and what kinda of luxury you want.
Uhh...okay, this is my first post, so hopefully this will be informative.
Let me shed some light on this thread. I was an AV6 owner for 3 years before my poor car bit the dust in a canadian ice storm last week :( Now I am looking to buy the MDX in a few days....just can't find my color and trim!!
So anyway, I'm glad that pospos realized that the TSX _IS_ the accord. Our American accord is some "other" beast that the rest of the world doesn't want. The TSX is based on the euro/japan/australia platform. High revvin engines are what honda is known for...just look at the S2000. The only problem is that us Americans...have a heavy foot and don't know how to drive manual and keep the needle in the peak HP / Torque range. Sooo...Honda decided to bring out lots of nice 6 cyl engines (J-series) to quench our appetites and give us more torque and hp down low.
Now as far as buying an Accord vs TSX..it depends on what you want.
The 03 V6 Coupe, has a 6sp manual which is probably the only option for a "good" transmission on the V6 accords. I'm just going to eliminate the possibility of a 4banger accord because it's just crap. As far as the V6 automatics go...I personally owned a V6 automatic 4speed, and it was a great car but a defective transmission. The new automatics have a 5speed that's stronger and are very nicely redesigned on the inside....someone must have missed a design review on the outside of the sedan, but the coupe is alright.
The TSX is probably more of a "FUN" car. I think it should have been badged "Honda" but since they are getting rid of the CL in the Acura line, I guess they need a 6sp that can offer luxury while still allowing the driver to have some fun. Now if you want to "tune" a 4dr acura, this is probably the one to get. It first off has the same body as the euro/japan accords so you can get exterior mods that are really cool :) And also, since it has the same engine platform as the iVtec's found in the Euro accord and the Japanese accord, there are lots of bolt on engine enhancements. It's also the same ECU as the RSX and there are already aftermarket EMS out there to tune the car...AEM, etc.
Soo...in conclusion...if you want a cheap car that's quiet, powerful, and spacious...get the Accord V6 or Acura TL/CL. if you want a sports sedan that's fun and luxurious and want to drive a nice close ratio 6sp, get the TSX, otherwise get the TL-S...which I think is awesome. (If not the MDX, I would get the TL-S..but I need to feel safe after my car accident)
okay, hope this helped. :4:
oh btw, can someone please explain what "RES" is? :confused: I see it in just about everyone signature, but have no idea what this is referring to. (I tried the search function but got just about every thread as a result) |
|
|
| 1SICKLEX |
The Acura TSX like the Infiniti M45 is a gap filler. That is all. An average car. It's sales goal is 15,000 a year. THat is a lil over 1,000 a month. That is pathetic for a 25k car.
For those that don't know it is the Euro Accord. Not a thing is different on the car. They just slapped a Acura badge on. Not 1 body panel or anything in the interior.
The TSX is a good car but when your FWD, 4-cylinder is said to be a BMW 3 series and IS 300 beater, your a focking joke.:headshake :headshake :headshake |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
WM,
Are you sure that graph is right?? The Nissan Altima has 270 lbs of Torque?? Man, i need to go to Nissan website to check this out...i did not know it had that much torque! :eek: Or am i just not reading the graph right???
Thanks for info. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
WM,
Are you sure that graph is right?? The Nissan Altima has 270 lbs of Torque?? Man, i need to go to Nissan website to check this out...i did not know it had that much torque!
I had wondered the same thing, as Nissan only lists the 3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve V6 engine at 245 hp and 246 lb-ft torque. It's quite possible that the dyno test was a bit anomalous.
It's also quite possible that Nissan underrates the engine. That powerplant is the basis for a lot of Nissan/Infiniti vehicles now, all producing a variety of HP and torque peaks. In the Nissan Maxima, its 3.5 V6 is listed as 265 hp and 255 lb-ft torque.
Even if the torque was 246 lbs, that's still plenty more than the smaller Accord V6 engine.
Problem with the Altima is the relatively cheap interior, even compared to an Accord. But that power is pretty sweet, and you can buy a really loaded Altima 3.5 SE for under $26k. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Wm,
Actually, i always thought Nissan/Infiniti OVER-rates their engines. Have you noticed that a few Nissans or Infinities (sp?) do not have the "expected" acceleration numbers, despite having amazing HP/Torque ratings?? Some blame on bad gearing or sluggish tranny. I still don't know.
Examples:
1. Infiniti QX4: With 240HP and 265 Torque, it cannot even break the 9.0 second mark from 0-60 in most reviews (average around 9.5 seconds i think)! That is horrible! My 4Runner gets about 10 seconds...and it only has 183 HP. MDX which has similar power can easily get 8.0 seconds and i think MDX is a bit heavier too! RX300 is also a bit faster than QX4 and it has a weaker engine.
2. Infiniti Q45: Again, it was tested SLOWER than the Lexus LS430 in some reviews despite having a significant power advantage AND less curb weight. I know that many Q45 owners blame it on gearing...but the Lexus gearing is not any more aggressive! And no one has bothered to test the '03 models with the re-gearing.
3. Nissan Maxima (not the new one): Had a lot of power, but was actually SLOWER than the previous generations!
4. Nissan 350Z and Infiniti G35 Coupe: they are not very fast despite having a 280 HP/270 Torque engine. The 350Z can make to 60 mph in about 5.5-5.8 seconds, with a MANUAL tranny. The G35 coupe can make it around 5.9 seconds, with MANUAL TRANNY.
In comparison, the Lexus GS430, which is a sedan and much heavier, and with AUTO TRANNY, can do 0-60 in 5.8-6.0 seconds. It does have a small advantage in power (300/325). Still the weight of the GS is enough to offset the power advantage.
Or take the BMW 330ci, with manual tranny, which can do 0-60 in about 6.1 seconds, and it has only 225 HP.
The ONLY one that has done consistently well in acceleration is the Altima (as you pointed out).
I am still under the impression that Nissan/Infiniti is over-rating their engines. This is the HP-generation.
Thanks. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
quote:
Originally posted by 1SICKLEX
The Acura TSX like the Infiniti M45 is a gap filler. That is all. An average car. It's sales goal is 15,000 a year. THat is a lil over 1,000 a month. That is pathetic for a 25k car.
I have to agree with 1SickLex. 15K goal is pretty low for a car aimed at $25-30K class.
Just to give some comparisons, the Lexus SC430 ($61K car, limited production) has a production goal of about 12-15K/year. The Jeep Wrangler Rubicon ($28K; also limited) has a goal of about 8-10K/2003.
I can't think of any "limited-production" car in the $25-30K class.
Thanks. |
|
|
| Fredo |
quote:
Originally posted by jedi_gras
oh btw, can someone please explain what "RES" is? :confused: I see it in just about everyone signature, but have no idea what this is referring to.
RES is the Rearseat Entertainement System, aka the DVD option.
By the way, Jedi_gras, I agree with pretty much everything you said as far as the difference between a Euro/Japan Accord and a US Accord. One thing though: I'm not sure about the aftermarket bonanza. There are tons of stuff available in the land of the rising fun that just won't adjust on American models, because of metric difference or real mechanical changes (remember that the steering is on the other side and so the whole cabin is reversed: forget about some trim accessories !)
The Honda Japan website is very informative when you compare what type of accessories are available over there vs here (such as the Xenon lights on the Accord for instance.) If you don't speak Japanase and want to have a look, you can try altavista. Just remember that what it calls 'Suicide Seat" is really the 'Front Passenger Seat' :D
If you check the Japanese MDX, there is a couple of fun differences: the shifter is straight instead of being 'sequenced' (http://www.honda.co.jp/auto-lineup/...hift/index.html), and our already usefull navi system is nothing compared to all the wonders it has in store in Japan (thanks to the InterNavi Premium Club). You get intelligent road traffic info which incorporates with the navi routing to avoid gridlock, next-service guide for freeways, three dimensional views with building representation, telephone integration, THREE YEARS OF FREE DVD UPDATES !!!, etc...
Back to the TSX vs Accord discussion, if Acura only envisions such small sales for the TSX, you'll probably find tons more aftermarkets for the US Accord than for TSX then... Something else to consider ? |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
Just curious, which G20 are you referring to? The ill-fated first-gen, which indeed had a powerful 4-cylinder but didn't handle anything special, or the second-gen, which handled well but was similarly unsuccessful?
I think when comparing it with TSX, we were talking about the second-gen (introduced as a '99 model). That was the "born in Japan, raised in Europe" or some marketing crap like that. Based on the Nissan Primera, it handled well but had a weak 145 hp engine. For the price that Infiniti originally wanted for it, it was pretty close to a discounted Maxima with a more powerful, smoother Nissan V6.
The second-gen engine certainly wasn't that special by 1998; the 140 hp Integra powerplant preceded it by roughly 5 years, and so did the 170+ hp VTEC 4-cylinder.
Holy crap! There were 2 generations!:rolleyes: No wonder Nissan almost went bankrupt!:2:
The 2.0L I4 from Infiniti had more torque than the Integra non-VTEC engine. Only Acura VTEC engine had more power back then (i think). Toyota had nothing to compete with it at that engine size.
Remember also, back then, there was not this intense HP/0-60 competition among the brands. The Infiniti G20 was slow, but certainly not very slow when compared to it's competitors. I think a manual-equipped G20 can do around 9 seconds 0-60, which is not bad at all in 1998.
For us now, a $23K car can do 0-60 in about 6.5 seconds (Altima). A $28K car can do in under 6 seconds (G35 coupe/350Z)! For crying out loud, we have SUVs that can do at or even under 6 seconds (Cayenne or FX45)! Most SUVs now can do under 9 seconds.
Honda Accords, Altima, etc. can do under 7 seconds nowadays. Toyota Camry is a freaking turtle, and it can do under 8 seconds...and that is REALLY slow by today's standards.
I just hope the TSX can get near 7 seconds (manual tranny)....
Thanks. |
|
|
| jedi_gras |
quote:
Originally posted by Fredo
RES is the Rearseat Entertainement System, aka the DVD option.
By the way, Jedi_gras, I agree with pretty much everything you said as far as the difference between a Euro/Japan Accord and a US Accord. One thing though: I'm not sure about the aftermarket bonanza.
...
Back to the TSX vs Accord discussion, if Acura only envisions such small sales for the TSX, you'll probably find tons more aftermarkets for the US Accord than for TSX then... Something else to consider ?
Thanks for the info. Anyway, as far as the aftermarket for the US accord, I can tell you first hand that there's not much out there. And what IS out there is really expensive because it's a V6 model. The reason the 4 cyl is more tuner friendly is because of the RSX and Civic line which already have mods that will be able to carry over with only a little bit of trouble. And there are already aftermarket parts especially for the Euro-R accord. And since the TSX is the same Exterior as the Japanese Mugen Accord, all of the exterior mods will match up perfectly.
Well, that's my 2 cents anyway. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by tigd99
The 2.0L I4 from Infiniti had more torque than the Integra non-VTEC engine. Only Acura VTEC engine had more power back then (i think). Toyota had nothing to compete with it at that engine size.
Remember also, back then, there was not this intense HP/0-60 competition among the brands. The Infiniti G20 was slow, but certainly not very slow when compared to it's competitors. I think a manual-equipped G20 can do around 9 seconds 0-60, which is not bad at all in 1998.
Thai,
While I agree that the 2.0 liter in the G20 had good output for its size, its inclusion in the G20 made that vehicle significantly underpowered. As you said, there's no replacement for displacement. There were other vehicles with similar or larger displacements for comparable prices, with more overall power (though many of those vehicles were heavier). If you go back to almost all reviews for the G20's introduction as a 1999 model, they almost universally call it "underpowered." Most reviews had the automatic version clocked at a pokey 10.x to even 11.x seconds (Edmunds).
You're also correct in that the power bar has been raised significantly the last few years. However, the G20 was only introduced about four years ago.
quote:
The 2.0L I4 from Infiniti had more torque than the Integra non-VTEC engine.
Barely, though. The 1999 G20 was 140 hp and 132 lbs of torque in the 99 model. The 1994 Integra 1.8 liter non-VTEC put out 142 hp and 127 lbs. Obviously the torque curves were different but that data isn't as readily available.
Let's look at some other engines available around the time.
The larger Honda 2.3 liter I4 with VVT put out 150 horses and 152 lbs of torque a year earlier than the second-gen G20's debut. Even the 2.0 liter I4's in the '99 CR-V's (that I'm sure you're familiar with) got boosted to 146 hp, 133 lbs of torque, very comparable to the G20's. Though of course the curves were different.
The Prelude of '97 produced about 190 horses and 156 lbs of torque with a 2.2 liter I4.
Even Nissan's prev-gen Altima had more power, albeit in a bigger 2.4l engine, with about 150 hp and 154 lbs of torque. I believe that vehicle could slightly out-accelerate the G20 at a much lower price tag.
Realistically, Infiniti was hoping that it could sell a small, "sporty" entry-level luxury car for the low-twenties. But for that kind of money, there were non-luxury, less sport-handling cars that were significantly more roomy and definitely faster. E.g. the previous-gen Honda Accord LX/EX with the V6 had 200 horsepower and was about 1.7-2.0 seconds faster 0-60 than the G20 -- a large difference going from 10.x seconds with the automatic to 8.x seconds. Even the V6 Camry of that day (1999 model year) was similar in price, and was also in the 8.x second range.
Even vehicles with weaker acceleration were more interesting than the G20. E.g. the '99 Passat with the automatic tranny was nearly as slow as the G20, but it was a lot more interesting vehicle with an interior about as nice as the G20. Then you had the fact that you could spend a couple of grand or three up from the G20 and get a Maxima.
The '99 G20 would have done better in the mid-nineties, but not the late-nineties. |
|
|
| wmquan |
Actually, according to posters on Edmunds, the TSX isn't as much a rebadged Euro Accord as much as it's a JDM Accord with the sports package? The Euro Accords supposedly don't get the sports suspension that's in the TSX. At least that's what the guys on Edmunds say.
That's not to say that it's not a rebadge, it's only a nit. :D |
|
|
|
