Last post on Aug 04, 2010 at 4:39 AM
You are in the Acura TSX
What is this discussion about?
Acura TSX, Sedan
#76 of 241 Re: smarty666 & fedlawman [nyccarguy]
Aug 02, 2009 (7:06 pm)
Well put NYC. The reason some people prefer the TSX to the TL is the same reason why some choose the TSX over the Accord. Size. The TSX is a more compact car that is arguably sportier (at least in 4 cyl trim) and more fun to drive. For young urban up and comers, why choose a larger sedan when you can have a right-sized one?
Yes, I think we have the perfect mix of cars for our family. The M3 to play with on the weekends, and the Volvo V70 wagon for the family during the week. Our Volvo has the rear-facing 3rd row seat, so we can haul 4 adults and 3 kids (!!!) to the movies if we need to. We love our Volvo (it's been a fantastic, comfortable & luxurious touring car and has been utterly reliable), but with almost 100K miles, I've have been checking out new cars. So far, nothing out there is a worthy replacement. I like the new V70, but I don't think it's as good a car as the previous generation (it's more refined, but the new 3.2L V6 can't touch my 30+ MPG hwy economy), and since Volvo stopped offering the 3rd row (only the V90 has it), it's not an option for us.
Of all the new cars I've looked at with 3 rows of seating, the Acura MDX would be my choice if I had to buy a new "wagon" today. It's very nice. If I didn't need three rows, then I'd strongly consider the Hyundai Genesis. It's the nicest $30,000 car on the market.
But as it stands, $250 for a timing belt change and $300 for front & rear brake rotors, and our 2004 should be good for many miles to come. It's a great car and I see no reason to part with it.
#77 of 241 Re: smarty666 & fedlawman [fedlawman]
Aug 02, 2009 (7:20 pm)
Thanks for your reply. I'm obviously pushing for the TSX, but in the end, she's going to be the one driving it & will have to live with the car for the next 8 years or so (I'd push for 10 ).
After driving the X3 for the past 2 years, she feels like she's sitting too low in the TSX (that's what I like about it), so she's going to drive it again.
She likes the Volvo because it has true wagon cargo space behind the seats (as opposed to the 3 series & A4 wagons with their raked rears that rob cargo space. The Volvo V70 is a nicely styled wagon. I have a feeling that most dealers here will only have XC70s in stock (AWD+heaftier price tag+even worse gas mileage = not for us).
#78 of 241 Re: smarty666 & fedlawman [nyccarguy]
Aug 03, 2009 (5:49 am)
Well, the V70 doesn't sit any higher than the TSX. Except for the great cargo room in the rear, it feels like any other mid-size sedan (with the best seats in the business).
#79 of 241 Re: smarty666 & fedlawman [fedlawman]
Aug 03, 2009 (7:35 am)
well if you are looking for something compact then the TSX is def your car; I guess it is just personal preference; for almost the same amount of money I'd rather be in a bigger vehicle but thats just me; I did like the V4 when I had the loaner TSX at the end of last year; something I liked with the TSX was how sharp and crisp its handling is; consumer reports rated its handling a 8 while the TL is 7; the only car I have ever driven that had the same kind of crisp handling like the TSX had was a G37 coupe which is saying something!! bravo for Acura on the handling on the TSX!!!
If it true that the 2011 RL will have Honda's first production V8 that will most likely solve the problem the RL has had all along!! hopefully that will make the RL sell better and compete much more with the V8 sedans by Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, etc
#80 of 241 Re: smarty666 & fedlawman [smarty666]
Aug 03, 2009 (3:18 pm)
Nit pick here, but the TSX has an I-4, not a V-4 engine.
I remember when the current RL came out in 2005, it really impressed as a beautiful sedan. The press raved about it's handling too. It's biggest problem was price - it was just too expensive for what you got. Still is.
I also think that, although logically the TSX V6 should cost the same as the base TL because arguably, it costs the same to manufacture, the $5,000+ premium over the I-4 TSX is hard to justify. Personally, I think the turbo I-4 from the RDX would have been a much better choice for the TSX.
#81 of 241 Re: smarty666 & fedlawman [fedlawman]
Aug 03, 2009 (4:52 pm)
yeah the turbo I4 in the RDX is a really nice engine; the torque is more than in even some V6 engines; its a shame Acura didn't put the turbo I4 in the TSX; that would have made for sweet ass ride!
#82 of 241 Re: smarty666 & fedlawman [smarty666]
Aug 03, 2009 (6:36 pm)
And it would have kept the line between the TSX and TL distinct. Two different cars with different characters.
#83 of 241 TSX/RDX/Volvo/TL
Aug 03, 2009 (7:00 pm)
Ok guys, so the Volvo is OUT. The dealer didn't have any V70s on the lot (said the 2010s would be out in November), but could get me a great deal on an '09 XC70. I told the gentleman that I'd like to drive the car first before we start to discuss any type of pricing. So he got a 3.2L (They make a T6 with Turbos too...yummy) XC70 from the back & we took it out for a test drive. First off, the plastic body cladding is a total turn-off for me (he said it makes the car more macho). Second, the XC is really geared toward the SUV crowd as I felt like I was sitting ON the car. The seat wouldn't go down far enough. The steering was vague, the ride was very comfortable, there was tons of space. The engine was buzzy & wheezed along like it smoked 3 packs a day. The salesman asked my wife if she wanted to drive the car next...I said no thanks for her.
Who knows why Honda chose to put the V6 in the car instead of the Turbo 4 from the RDX. They thought that people would pay a price premium for a V6 over an I4, but not a Turbo I4 over a NA I4. A V6 is more refined. Some people think a 4cyl is a 4cyl turbo or no turbo.
The V6's numbers look better on paper (marketing wise) as it pumps out 280 Horsepower, 79 more than the NA I4 & 40 more than the Turbo 4. The V6's torque is 84 lb-ft more than the NA I4 & only 6 lb-ft less than the Turbo 4 (Remember, we Americans BUY horsepower, but want torque). As far as gas mileage goes, the FWD RDX gets 1 mpg more than the TSX V6 in the city (on paper). Anyone who has ever owned a Turbo knows they get awful gas mileage in the city. The V6 TSX is rated at 27 MPG Highway vs. 24 for the RDX FWD (Turbo). Turbos also have lots of extra plumbing and even though modern turbos are built to last, a V6 is more durable due to the fact that it is less complicated.
Now I'm just playing devil's advocate on the part of Honda. I'd love it if the TSX were available with the Turbo 4.
I also think Honda needs to develop a 6-speed (or 7 speed) automatic to get the acceleration numbers down & fuel economy numbers up for the V6 & the Turbo 4.
We're going back to the Acura dealership tomorrow so my we can test drive the car again & maybe strike a deal. Wish us luck!
#84 of 241 No Longer Premium Gas Recommended?
Aug 06, 2009 (12:44 pm)
I was test driving a TSX the other day and the dealer said that Acura officially has they do not require/recommend this anymore on the new TSX's. Sorry, I cannot remember whether his said require or recommend. So I will just use them simultaneously.
My first question was: Is this in the instruction manual? His response "I dont think so in the 09's, but it may be in the 2010's manual. I haven't checked yet. But we did get a press release from Acura saying 'they no longer recommend/require premium fuel in the TSX's'"
Anyways, I've been trying to find this "press release" online that shows this. Has anyone seen this or can confirm it? I was still planning to put premium fuel in the car, but if Acura has officialy stopped recommending/requiring it, I would reconsider.
Can any 2010 owners check their user manual?
#85 of 241 Re: No Longer Premium Gas Recommended? [richey02hg]
Aug 06, 2009 (1:14 pm)
What difference does it make? Whether it's official or not, the engine is the same as it has always been.
Use whatever type of gas you want - it won't hurt the car.