- #316 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [fedlawman]
by jpdisarro
-
Feb 04, 2009 (7:02 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: fedlawman (Feb 01, 2009 12:58 pm)
I'd rather pay $32k for a V6 TSX. The only reason I'd move to the TL would be to purchase the SH-AWD version - I consider the FWD version completely uninteresting.
Although you may not be a fan of the 3G TL, it would outsold nearly every car in its class at its peak. The Jan. 09 sales numbers show that the TSX outsold the TL, which was unheard of a couple years ago, so many consumers obviously appreciate the smaller size and better styling of the TSX.
|
- #317 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [jpdisarro]
by bvdj84
-
Feb 04, 2009 (7:43 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: jpdisarro (Feb 04, 2009 7:02 am)
I would opt for the V6 TSX too, though I saw a new TL at work, and it was the AWD model. I asked the man how he liked it, and he stated it gripped the road so firmly through the snow. He loved it! I said, I bet! I would get the TL, but with the TSX being so much bang for the buck, and no need for me to have a bigger car and V6. Though, the V6 in the TSX would be amazing fun! But, if you get the TL, I am sure its worth the cost, even over a few of its competition.
I will admit the TL looks better in person than it does on a picture.
|
- #318 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [jpdisarro]
by fedlawman
-
Feb 04, 2009 (12:57 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: jpdisarro (Feb 04, 2009 7:02 am)
I guess I just can't stand all the upsizing that manufacturers are doing. The Civic is so big now that Honda had to give us the Fit.
The original TSX was so good, I hated to see it go.
|
- #319 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [fedlawman]
by bodble2
-
Feb 04, 2009 (2:20 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: fedlawman (Feb 04, 2009 12:57 pm)
" I just can't stand all the upsizing that manufacturers are doing"
Then you can't possibly advocate the new TL over the TSX, at least not the FWD version. I think that's why there should be significant interest in a V6 TSX --- there are a lot of people who didn't want the TL to be upsized so drastically.
|
- #320 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [bodble2]
by fedlawman
-
Feb 04, 2009 (2:49 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bodble2 (Feb 04, 2009 2:20 pm)
I'm not advocating the TL over the TSX.
I'm saying the 1st gen TSX was about as good as it gets in a FWD sport/lux sedan. The current model is already a step down, and adding a heavy V6 over the front axle will only make it worse, IMHO.
|
- #321 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [fedlawman]
by bodble2
-
Feb 04, 2009 (3:56 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: fedlawman (Feb 04, 2009 2:49 pm)
What about a smaller V6 in the TSX? That would give it some much-needed torque and still keep the weight down. After all, the 3-series (and even the 1 series) models all have 6 cyl motors and are not lacking in nimbleness.
|
- #322 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [bodble2]
by fedlawman
-
Feb 04, 2009 (7:20 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bodble2 (Feb 04, 2009 3:56 pm)
What do you propose, maybe a brand new 2.5L V6? Lexus has a nice one in the IS - it makes 185 lb ft peak torque compared to the TSX's 170. In a 3500 lb car, you'll never feel the difference.
Other manufacturers have used 2.5L 6 cylinder engines in the past and moved up to 3.0L and 3.5L engines because the "small" 6's just don't make enough power by today's (North American) standards. BMW's 2.5L I-6 (sold in Canada in the 323i) makes 180 lb ft and 200 hp. Again, not worth the effort.
You have to go back a few years to find more 2.5L V6 engines. Ford's hot-rod Contour SVT had a sweet 2.5L V6 engine. It was an even match for the TSX - 170 lb ft and 200 hp.
Acura could put a small 6 in the TSX, but it wouldn't improve performance at all (it's already more than quick enough for what it is). A V6 would simply remove the "stigma" of being a 4-cylinder - which is basically the only problem the TSX has ever had.
|
- #323 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [fedlawman]
by bodble2
-
Feb 04, 2009 (9:33 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: fedlawman (Feb 04, 2009 7:20 pm)
Actually I did have in mind a 3.0 V6, like the one in the 1998 - 2002 Accord. I found that engine extremely smooth and flexible. And I would have to disagree with you on the improved performance. I think a small V6 will have a noticeable difference in performance. Yeah, you may not see a huge jump in the rated hp and torque numbers, but a V6 can be tuned for higher low end torque. I found the old TSX so weak down low (with an automatic) it was just no fun. Yes, it's better with the manual since you can wring it out, but that gets tiring fast, and I'm not interested in driving that way on a daily basis. You brought up the issue of the stigma of a 4 cyl. I wasn't thinking about that but you know that has been a criticism of Acura. I can't think of another luxury brand that has a 4 cylinder-only model.
|
- #324 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [bodble2]
by jpdisarro
-
Feb 04, 2009 (10:02 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bodble2 (Feb 04, 2009 9:33 pm)
Today's rumor on the Acura websites is that the new engine will be the current TL's 3.5L V6 with 280 hp. This engine weighs no more than the previous 3.2L engine and little more than the older Accord's 3.0L V6, so I doubt that there would be a significant advantage in manufacturing a smaller V6. Also, the 3.5L V6 will probably be the most cost effective option as the engine is already manufactured in volume for the Accord and TL.
|
- #325 of 364
-
Re: new tsx [bodble2]
by fedlawman
-
Feb 05, 2009 (10:11 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bodble2 (Feb 04, 2009 9:33 pm)
A 3.0L V6 is not a "small" V6. The difference in weight between the 3.0L V6 and 2.4L I-4 was enough to make the Accord steer like a pig compared to the TSX in 2004.
I do agree with you about the automatic transmission TSX though. My uncle had one and it's a complete drag to drive - might as well buy a Camry.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
