Article Comments - 2009 Acura TSX First Drive and Full Test

83 messages, Last post on Jul 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM

You are in the Acura TSX Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Acura TSX, Sedan

First Drive: 2009 Acura TSX - First Impressions: Acura builds a better TSX for 2009, but it forgets to add a couple must-have ingredients (like chic styling, competitive power and raw desirability) to entice the young, sophisticated buyers it seeks. (more)

Full Test: 2009 Acura TSX - Bottom Line: A more relaxed and sophisticated commuter device than the original TSX, but it no longer makes the cut as a driver's car. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 7 of 9: 1; ...; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; Prev; Next; Last

#59 of 83 Re: Alot of cash for not much car [cz75] by fedlawman May 17, 2008 (10:07 am)
Replying to: cz75 (May 16, 2008 10:53 pm) "They certainly can't claim to be a top-tier luxury marque and they've always been an also-ran for the sporting market." Agreed. But Acura's ace in the hole has always been superior value. They can afford to be an also-ran because 95% of the buying public can't tell the difference between a BMW and an Acura from behind the wheel anyways. "The 2009 TSX is a less capable car than the one it replaces, so is that also part of the geniuses' in Honda's marketing dept.?" Yup, I think Honda blew it with the 2009 also, but I suspect that they know their customers better than we do. The vast majority of TSX buyers are not enthusiasts, and so in designing the 2009, they addressed TSX owners most common complaint - NVH. "BTW, the TSX IS at the bottom of the Acura brand, so why does the TL offer more sport AND more features?" More so with the previous gen TSX than the new one, but the TSX has always been sportier than the TL, which by comparison, is a bloated, floating, understeering pig. The new TSX has lost some of it's edge, but it's still lighter and more nimble than the TL. "The 2009 TSX is an odd-looking (subjective) also ran (agreed) that substitutes feature content for sporting capability (no different than the latest BMW 3-series, Infinity G, Audi A4, and Lexus IS) in the entry level of the sport luxury sedan market..." Unfortunately, that's where the market is going (bigger, heavier, and softer). It alienated me years ago - that's why I drive a 20 year old BMW now. "...looking to get spanked by the IS or G35 for almost the same money." The TSX offers the same performance and luxury of the IS250, but offers more passenger comfort and costs $1500 less. The G35 costs significantly more. Actually, it's pretty obvious that Acura targeted the IS250 as it's performance benchmark for the TSX. None of these cars are sports cars anymore. Too bad...
#60 of 83 I'd Be Driving. . . by cdnpinhead May 17, 2008 (1:03 pm)
a BMW 3-series today, but for the run-flat tires, dipstick issue (not just that - it's the concept that a mere driver shouldn't be opening the hood, besides which the oil level sensors didn't always work) and crappy lease deals on the wagons. So, I've got last year's TSX & enjoy it. I guess that proves I'm not worthy to drive a BMW (or the other "real" sports sedans), unlike the badge-seeking multitudes who can't tell the difference between RFT & real tires and continue to buy the brand. Oh well. The TL doesn't offer fold-down rear seats, which is a deal-breaker for me. I think it's necessary to do an S on the TL to get a manual transmission, also non-negotiable -- with the S, as I recall, you have to take the nav, which I don't want -- I'm very happy with my portable. There actually are reasons why people who like to drive cars (and can, kinda) would choose a TSX, though it sounds like the new one is no prize.
#61 of 83 2009 Acura TSX by k2h May 18, 2008 (9:49 am)
If Acura wants to really compete with the rest of the luxury brands out there, they really need to separate themselves from Honda. Look at Lexus, in my opinion you wouldn't think it was a Toyota to begin with, even Infiniti they both have it together to compete. With Acura there's no way they can, their interiors look too much like Honda, their behind in technology(in some ways), FWD is not the way to go in this segment. Hasn't Acura learned from the other's yet? If anyone asks me how I would rank Lexus, Infiniti, or Acura, I would rate Lexus first, Infiniti second, and Acura third because Acura is really not luxury, it's "semi-luxury."
#62 of 83 The '09 TSX... by bodble2 May 18, 2008 (9:51 am)
has become sort of a cheaper, entry-level, 4 cyl version of the TL.
#63 of 83 Sport Edition??? by 2002jetta May 18, 2008 (10:11 am)
Can we get a sport edition of this car with the 2.3 Turbo in the RDX?????? PLEASE!!!!
#64 of 83 09 TSX - Continued Disappointment by eljefe68 May 19, 2008 (9:27 am)
As I have posted elsewhere, from the pics and the specs, we see Acura ill-advisedly chose to give the new TSX a funky restyle and no increase in power. Now I read that they have pretty much neutered its fun to drive nature. HERESY!! Why do we all love our first-gen TSX despite the modest HP? Because the first-gen car is way fun to drive. I swear my 05 has the same spiritthat my 98 Prelude had, but now, as I read it, all Honda has done is turn the TSX into the car for all those driving poseurs who think they are sporty with their slushboxes and the ladies who like gadgets. Simply pathetic. Replies to this message: bjcman (May 19, 2008 2:48 pm)
#65 of 83 Re: 09 TSX - Continued Disappointment [eljefe68] by bjcman May 19, 2008 (2:48 pm)
Replying to: eljefe68 (May 19, 2008 9:27 am) I have to say that the TSX is an ugly car, but I have some disagreements with the review. First off, when did an AWD IS 250 with Navi cost $32K? Can edmunds.com find me one? Second, I have no idea why edmunds.com is disappointed about the TSX not being a driver's car. There are rumors of a Type-S version and a coupe version of the TSX. Also, watching the recent TSX commercials, it would appear to me that Acura is targeting young individuals that will buy their first entry-level luxury sedan, not a sport-sedan. In addition, I live in the bay area, and I almost never see any driver really use their car. There are so many BMW drivers that take turns extremely slow. Heck, I went mountain driving with friends, and someone who drove an E46 M3, attacked corners at an incredibly slow speed.
#66 of 83 Re: Alot of cash for not much car [cz75] by ocg35man May 19, 2008 (4:56 pm)
Replying to: cz75 (May 16, 2008 10:53 pm) Top of the line TSX costs not much less than well equiped G35 or IS250. In terms of performance, it has 4 cy. engine and much slower than Camry V6 or Accord V6. This car is only for someone who truly loves Acura and wants more gadget/luxury than performance. If gas price in U.S. goes well over $4/gal., it might be a little more attractive for some people. Otherwise, it would be a tough sell against some other nicer cars that cost about the same or slightly more than TSX.
#67 of 83 I'm disappointed too, but the review is too harsh. by nedmundo May 26, 2008 (8:09 pm)
I've been eagerly awaiting the new TSX, because after a 1995 Jetta GLX and 2001 Saab 9-5 Aero (wonderful, but not trouble-free), I wouldn't mind returning to Honda reliability. Like many, I was hoping for the turbo motor from the RDX, and was diappointed that Acura retained the previous engine with modest tweaks. And I didn't like what I was reading about the steering. So I've test driven it twice, first on straight roads around an automall, then on back roads in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Both had the 6M. I agree with the Edmunds editor that the transmission and clutch are a high point of the driving experience, but I was also very impressed with the suspension tuning and handling. The ride remained composed over slightly rough pavement, and body motions were well-controlled on the back roads. I noticed little body roll, and found the car agile and responsive. For reference, it positively blows away the Saab 9-3 2.0T on the back roads, but can't match the 9-3 Aero's aggressive feel. So for front drive, I think it's very good. On the first drive, I thought the steering felt funny a couple of times, but on the second I noticed nothing troubling at all. Does it have the wonderful feedback of a BMW or Saab? No, but it seemed fine to me. I had no trouble placing the car on narrow, winding country roads, at speeds that could have added points to my license. On this point, I suspect the Edmunds review goes over the top, because most drivers, including some enthusiasts, will probably be happy with it. I'd like more seat time for a more definitive judgment, but I was paying close attention to this on the second drive, and had no complaints. Consumer Reports commented that the previous TSX "straddles" the family and sport sedan categories. I agreed then, and I think the same characterization is apt with the 2009 model. It's not a full-blown sport sedan, but has just enough performance to be more entertaining than a conventional family sedan. And it has just enough utility to serve as a family sedan. To me, it's an attractive package for a daily driver, though it should cost at least $2,000 less. I'm not sure I'd give up Saab turbo torque and steering feel for the TSX, but I'd consider it.
#68 of 83 Family sedan by jfavour Jun 16, 2008 (9:07 am)
I am probably the typical buyer for this car. I am mid 30s, owned several Hondas and Acuras, and I have a larger vehicle for family duty (Pilot). I am in the market for a sedan for daily driving to/from work, etc. I would love a serious sport sedan, but paying 40k or more is just too much. I also have 3 kids, who will occasionally use the back seat. This car needs to play multiple roles, get good mpg, be reliable, comfortable and fun for daily use. I drove the 09 last week and my first impression is very positive. I did not notice the numb steering (coming from an 02 CR-V). The car was quiet, steering felt quick, ride was firm, but not uncomfortable. My only complaints were the seating position felt a bit awkward to me (could be that I am used to the higher position of the CR-V) and the back seat is seriously cramped for regular use by normal people. I am guessing I would get used to the seating position, and my kids are still small, so the lack of rear seat space is not a huge hindrance. My nagging question is why should I get this car over a 2008 Accord EX-L? The accord is more "boring", but is probably 90% similar, but cheaper. I don't care about the luxury do dads, as I don't own any dvd audio disks (and don't want to have to buy them just for my car) and I can use a map very effectively. The blue tooth is nice, but couldn't I get that in an Accord? I want the TSX driving experience to overwhelm me into buying it over an Accord, but I am not sure that will be the case. I will have to drive them back to back and judge if the TSX is worth the extra $. Anyone else comparing these two? Replies to this message: nj2pa2nc (Jun 16, 2008 12:28 pm) bodble2 (Jun 19, 2008 1:01 pm) nj2pa2nc (Jun 20, 2008 2:59 am)