teombe

I know this is a TSX board, but there seems to be a ton more competitive analysis going on here than other boards. I occasionally still read vwvortex and saabcentral.com, and most of the posts in those boards are about mods or problems. Here, people talk about how much better BMWs and Audi A4's are better than the TSX... which got me thinking.

A supercar, the TSX is not. But it is a damn solid car, that IMHO is 95% of a BMW's performance at 75% of the cost. Also, IMO, audi's don't even compare. The reliability is qustionable, the shifters aren't as good, and the cars don't handle as well due to the extra weight (a Frontrak 3.0 weighs 3400 pounds). But, one comment people continue to make on this board is that the A4 should be every bit as reliable as our TSX.

Well, a good friend's experience with his 2003 A4 (not to mention consumer reports) just doesn't jive with those comments. His latest problem is that his ESP (braking) module has gone on the fritz, and will cut power to his engine at random intervals. In fact, this happened today on the freeway. I really don't expect that my TSX will ever have that problem, or anything of that magnitude.

I'd like to know how many people actually believe that Audi's current cars are as reliable or more reliable than Acura's lineup? Or are you (adam fiooz ) just angry when you post?

larchmont

Well, I'm in your camp, not the other one, but I'll start it off anyway.

People who say Audi has good reliability mostly either don't read stats and ratings or else don't believe them, or don't understand what most people's concept of reliability is. Some people have been saying that the new A4 has seemed reliable. I think Consumer Reports' system on reliability is the most well-done and uses the definition that is closest to what most people mean, and here's what they say about A4's reliability: "Reliability has been disappointing."

In addition to all the stats and ratings, I personally still haven't forgiven Audi for the "unintended acceleration" fiasco/scandal of the mid '80's. Won't go into it here. Maybe someone else wants to.

Saintor_RENAMED

Audi is like someone having a drinking problem. They always say that reliability issues have been resolved. And from generation to generation, it is not the case. Having to spend 3-5000$ in repairs between 50-80000 miles is not rare.

darth62

My sister has an A4 and it has been pretty reliable. She has only had it a bit more than a year though. Another colleague has had one for six years, with not a hint of serious problems.

As always, it is hit or miss with cars. I just think the chances of having problems with Audi is greater than with Acura, but it is not like Audi's fall apart the week after you get them.

Junkster

First and foremost, I have to admit that the Audi A4 with quattro is a more fun car to drive then the TSX, as much as I love the TSX. My roommate has the 2003 3.0 and it is certainly a great car.
But my reservations with the Audi brand started back in the 1980's when they had that brake failure fiasco through all their model lines and had a huge back lash here in the states. Then came the comments from an Audi engineer based in Aspen, Colorado about the reliability of their model line. He personally say that the only car that he would buy off the Audi/VW line is the Golf GTI because its a great bargain. All other models are, to him, overpriced and overengineered. This is from a man that tested the new S6 this summer and found it unimpressive, so take his comments as you will.
I think the TSX does a pretty good job in building a comparable Euro like sedan without all the problems that come with them. Honda reliability with european quality, that's what I would hope for from Acura.

Junkster, who saw the new Quest minivan and really loves its looks...

Skyhawk

Then I guess I am an alcoholic. :P

My odometer reads 47000mi.

No problems at all for these first 3 yrs, 10 mos, and 47k-mi.....

Skyhawk

Some others here need to get clued into this. I am not sure where the original poster got the idea that Audis are considered as reliable as Acuras by the A-TSX crowd. It seems many on here like to turn German-bashing into sport... who can make the most dramatic hyperbole to assert that Audi (or BMW or M-B) is really just a glorified Pontiac in terms of reliability?

My Audi experience (and 4 others I know) has been trouble free. My guess is half the German car bashers never owned one to experience their troubles, or lack thereof (in my case).

larchmont

Wow! -- Junkster was THERE!!!!!

Tell us, junkster -- what was really the story? Was the exact problem ever publicly identified? Do you mean that you had one of those Audis? If so, did anything real bad happen to you or anyone or your car? (Hope not.)

darth62

Its nice that your Audi has held up well, and I hope it continues to serve you for years. But, there are reams of data out there, particularly from Consumer Reports showing that Audis are not very reliable.

Keep in mind that cars as whole are becoming more reliable so even the reliability issues on the Audi line are not likely to be horrible. But, if you're looking for a brand with a good track record, Audi ain't it.

Brad

I have to agree with Larch.

While some people may by critical of Consumer Reports, by and large, it's been a pretty good indicator over several decades of gather reliability information. Other data on reliability surveys generally confirm or show what's good, what's mediocre (average), and what's worse.

That some people would possibly surmise that Audi is or must be some step above Acura is beyond me when you look at the big picture beyond marketing perceptions.

Clearly Honda/Acura has set its sights on BMW, Audi, Saab, and Lexus as direct competitors. Their press releases on Hondanews.com makes that clear.

2004 Acura TSX -- Introduction

To quote one paragraph:

reader1

I am trying to decide between the automatic TSX and the A4 1.8T FWD. In Canada, the difference in MSRP between these 2 cars are not as great as in the U.S., and with better discounting from Audi, the 2 cars full-loaded are essentially the same price (I found this hard to believe at first).

But a big issue for me is reliability. So first, I had to find a source that I can trust. The Audi's have a bad reputation, and Acura good, but I am not interested in reputation, I want impartial recommendations based on feedback from folks that drive them.

For those of you that don't want to read all the gory details of my research, just skip down to the paragraph that starts with "Bottom-line".

So first, I looked in the NHTSA database for cars that have had lots of bad safety complaints caused by defects, and then checked what the various publications had to say.

The 2 cars that I used were the Ford Focus and the Taurus ... the complaints against them were extraordinary bad. I have come to the conclusion that Consumer Report is not a good source for reliability recommendations. Last year they actually recommended both, and this year they are still recommending the Taurus.

The Lemon-Aid Guide is the only publication that told it like it is. They said that if you drive the Ford Focus, "you risk both your life and your wallet", and gave it a one-star, their worst possible rating. About the Taurus, it said "a history of serious mechanical and body deficiencies that can drive you straight to the poor house".

From the NHTSA database, I then pick a car that used to be excellent but is deteriorating in quality - the Camry. Consumer Report as expected gave it a recommended rating, with their highest reliability rating. However, this rating is not reflected in the high number of awful complaints against it. The Lemon-Aid Guide said "the company has been skating on its reputation for the past few years ... latest redesign shows quality control has lapsed."

Bottom-line: the Lemon-Aid Guide is the only one I trust to tell it like it is. Consumer Report is not a good source for evaluating reliability.

Here is what Lemon-Aid has to say about Honda/Acura in general, since it is too early for it to evaluate the TSX:
- "Honda/Acura powertrain reliability has deteriorated considerably over the past several years, though not at the same rate as Ford and Chrysler."
- "Honda has been generous in repairing these trannies free of charge; still, their sudden failure on the highway represents a clear public danger. They all should be recalled."
- My thoughts: From the transmission complaints against the CL & TL, I get the impression that Honda does not like recalls, they rather fix these as they break down. For me, that is unacceptable.
- About the Civic: "lowering its rating due to the serious safety-related complainted registered against the car over the past several years, and not corrected with the 2001 redesign".
- About the Acura CL: "even if the transmission remains intact, its erratic performance creates a serious safety hazard."

They are still giving most of the Honda/Acura's 4 stars out of 5, but they are pointing out also that the reputation does not reflect reality, where reliability and quality control has been slipping.

For the Audi A4 1.8T:
- "Saddled in the 80s with a reputation for poor-quality ... Audi fought back and staged a spectacular comeback with well-build, good-looking, moderately priced cars ... of all the European competition, Audi would be my first choice for a fun driving experience without the fear that my wallet will be emptied by outrageous service charges."
- "quality control has improved the last several years, with fewer body, trim, accessory, brake, and elecrical glitches than exhibited by previous models ... no major reliability headaches."
- They gave the A4 5 stars, their highest possible recommendation.

Bottom-bottom line: The problem with giong with reputation is that things are not what they seem. My conclusion is that Honda/Acura cars are still very good, but getting worse. The Audi's were bad, but getting better. I cannot honestly conclude that one is more reliable than the other TODAY.

reader1

Something else I forgot to mention. Honda is doing a large recall on CR-Vs in North America. I read about this as part of a research report on Honda from an investment firm. However, the general public isn't aware of this recall. It seems like the Honda PR folks are doing an excllent job at filtering this from the press.

darth62

The big problem with relying on the NHTSA saftey data base is that it contains information on rare defects that affect a very small number of cars. Same thing with the lemon-aide book. That book makes a big deal out of the Acura transmission problems, which affected less than 2% of all TL drivers. I'd guess that the correlation between those incidents and day-to-day reliability problems for the typical driver is close to zero.

CR's data is a survey based on something like 15,000 drivers. I've personally corresponded with them and know their analyses to be sound and careful. I have a Ph.D., and basically make my living with multvariate statistics, so I feel that I am in a reasonably good position to understand their analytic strategy.

If anything, you can fault CR for being to generous. They only require a car to show one or two years of reliability before they make a recommendation. So, some cars that are marginal (like the Taurus) do make the cut. That is particularly problematic with VW/Audi products, which tend to hold up OK for 3 or 4 years and then develop problems. The A4 was a recommended model in the late 90s, and the Passat is recommended well. Neither vehicle is likely to hold up well.


Still, even in those cases, CR gives you detailed tables listing reliability histories. So, an informed reader can get a reasonable take on what problems are likely to occur in the future.

I agree with Larchmont. CR is the best source out there. And, in my experience, the only drivers who discount CR are those who drive a non-recommended car and find it hard to live with the implications of CR's reports.

That is alll the more reason to be wary of cars like the Audi. Basically, reliability has to be pretty bad before you get the heave-ho from CR. Audi has been that bad, as had been VW as a whole.

darth62

Big deal. Every car company does recalls. Remember Toyota's big recall because of the sluge issue a few years ago?

Both of my Accords were recalled at least once, and both ran for close to 100,000 with almost nothing in repair costs.

reader1

Good point darth. CR tends to be overly generous, whereas Lemon-Aid overly critical.

I have no attachment to either Acura/Honda or Audi, have never had either. But I suspect that I will soon!

darth62

I really think the truth is somewhere in the middle here. I don't think Audis are nearly as unreliable as they are made out to be, and I think the A4 is a very nice car and a hell of a bargin for what you get. I just don't think, in the long run, the Audi will hold up as well. I think the available data is consistent with that, although an individual driver's experience might certainly vary.

Either way, I hope whatever you choose works out well for you. the A4 and TSX are both great options. I certainly considered the A4 closely myself.

reader1

Yes, the probability of it affecting you is small, but when it does, it can kill you. Read the NHTSA report about the lady and her daughter that lost complete use of her brakes in rush hour. Or the guy that died in the Camry because none of the front or side airbags deployed even though he flipped over on the highway and slammed into a tree.

That is why I will not consider the 2003 TL or Accord. At least with the TSX, if I get a bad one, I will just get some rattling or have to replace the battery.

teombe

Actually, I think typical American car reliability, Japanese car reliability and German car reliability almost have to be defined differently. Over the past 15 years or so, I've owned or had extensive access to the following cars:

1982 Chevy Camaro (V6) - owned
1992 Lexus ES300 - mom's
1993 Mazda 929 - dad's
1995 Honda Civic - owned
1997 Lexus ES300 - mom's
1998 Honda Civic - owned
1998 Chevy Cavalier (I4) - wife's
2000 Jeep Cherokee - leased for work
2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse - owned
2001 VW Jetta (VR6) - owned
2002 Honda Civic - wife's
2003 Audi A4 3.0 FronTrak - good friend's
2003 BMW 325ci Convertible - mom's
2004 Acura TSX - own

So, I'm no stranger to cars from those countries.

What i've found is that the German brands tend to "feel" like they did when they were new, but reliability rapidly declines with age. Usually, you end up repairing little things that cost tons of money to fix. Along the way, the cars experienced significantly more problems when they were new than both the Americans or the Japanese makes. For example, my Jetta broke 3 or 4 window regulators, the glove box door, the armrest lid, and the driver's seat height spring. In addition, the engine sounded much rougher after 24K miles than when I bought it. Same for my friend's A4...except his problems seem to indicate something much worse and more expensive coming down the pike. His CVT occasionally goes haywire, and it's in the shop right now for problems with his ESP unit killing power to the engine on the freeway. My mom's BMW has pretty much been problem free, but came with a poor door fit from the factory that had to be adjusted (she kept complaining of wind noise). IMO, these cars age beautifully from an exterior/interior standpoint, but I would never buy a used one because you really never know when the car just won't start in the morning.

The American brands, on the other hand, all seemed to go to shit rather steadily, but always worked. The engines didn't purr like they did when they were new, the cars smelled like they were burning oil, but they kept on trucking... (except for the Camaro, which cracked an engine block at 205,000 miles. not bad). The interiors just fall apart from day one, but I think American car buyers typically expect that. I would probably trust these cars to get me from point A to point B at 80K miles more than I would the German makes.

The Japanese brands are a strange bunch. The Hondas/Acuras, adn the Toyotas/Lexuses hold up EXTREMELY well in high mileage situations, both mechanically and aesthetically. My mom's 1997 ES300 has 90K miles on it. I recently took it on a road trip through Georgia. That thing drove like it was new! The leather looks a little worn, and some of the black trim on the exterior was oxidized, but my mom has never waxed the car or cleaned the seats either. She's also never taken it in for warranty repair. Of course, none of the hondas have ever failed me.

The Mazda and the Mitsu were both pieces of SHIT. Maird. I mean horrible... well, the Mitsu (which leaked oil and had to be lemon lawed) more so than the mazda, which constantly eats water pumps and door motors - but it is still running with over 100K miles... So, I guess it's not that bad... Kinda like the Chevys.

So, I apoligize that I come off as German-bashing, but my opinions are based on research and experience. I'll bet you a dollar for a dime that most Hondas (and hell, most Pontiacs ) will outlast any Audi.

vitocorleone

I think many people interpret a lot of comments made here as "German bashing" (though some of it does exist for real) when all it really is is acknowledging the German cars as CARS, not as otherworldly super-beings we should all bow down and worship simply because they're German. They have their high points, but they also definitely have their lows as well.

I wouldn't trust a single source. For example, I think that based on what you, a single source, have said that I would never trust the Lemon site, a single source, because they have apparently never heard of the whole coil pack fiasco (among other things), else they also would've rated the Audi at 4 stars or lower.

finalheaven

Using this, i will point out why i would not really rely on any reports, it is a good measurement but still should not be completely used to base reliability. Im sure that comsumer reports does a very good job in finding the reliability of cars from a few years ago. However car reliabilities may instantly change from year to year. (may change i said). Comsumer reports will not report that, or at least not early enough for someone to make a purchase with the car in that small time period. I know that Audi has been getting better due to the fact in the audi forums, people are talking about what has been fixed and what not. And that the problems that persisted are gone by the newer models. Imagining someone doesn't buy the audi because of the reports when it is reliable right now. Soon the entire A4 series changes with new engines/looks and etc. Comsumer reports now report that the audi is very reliable, then of course the new A4 might not be...

darth62

finalheaven, you make good sense (typical of your posts!). But, I think the issue here should not be changes in year-to-year reliability. We know all manufacturers are becoming more reliable over time and some, like Saab, have apparently made big leaps. In the end, a long-term record is more telling. Honda has been making reliable cars for years, and VW has been making some of the most trouble-prone vehicles on the road for years.

finalheaven

Yes long term reliability is even better. It is i guess safe to assume that the TSX will be very reliable. An engine that is not completely new, so it should be fine as long as the all the other euro-rs were good. Combined with what honda can do TSX will most likely (although no one can tell) be very very reliable. I understand that long term record is more telling, however there are exceptions. Old people like "larch" should know that old bmws and mercedes has been rock solid. They fell (bmw not as much) but mercedes sure did. Long term record would of stated that they would always be reliable. Long term is good for its own reasons, however a company that finally fixed everything will still have a bad rating for years to come.

chrisalberts

As a serial (German) car owner I'm inclined to agree with you on the whole - it is the little things that go wrong. However, I would say that second hand info doesn't always give the complete picture - you've really got to own the car to understand the pros and cons of ownership. Example: for many on this board (and this would include me) the fact that many TSXs exhibit minor door rattles does not significantly detract from their appeal. For some people it might be a deal breaker. Yes I have had frustrations with the German cars I've owned (3 BMWs, 1 Audi), BUT:

1. nothing serious has gone wrong (except for a flat battery);
2. the joy of ownership (engineering quality, build quality, driving experience etc.) FOR ME, far outweighed any problems (that's why I keep buying them).
3. the service/warranty experience (and you certainly get to use it) is very good.

We just got through owning an Audi S4 Avant for that last 2.5 years and that was a joy. I don't believe we even had to take it in for any unscheduled visits, though there were minor issues that got dealt with during the scheduled maintenance (free w. BMW/Audi/MB).

As for the original post, is an average A4 as reliable as an average TSX, the answer if you're talking about absolute defects is almost certainly "no". If you consider the overall ownership experience, then the answer is going to differ depending on your priorities.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for these cars, just saying that there are different kinds of reliability and reliability is only one consideration in the purchase decision.

C.

03 Ford F150
02 BMW M Coupe
-----------------------
01 Audi S4 Avant (RIP)
99 M3 coupe
98 Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited
98 Jeep Grand Cherokee V8 special edition
95 BMW 325is
98 Subaru Legacy Outback Limited (but only for 2 weeks)
97 Honda Prelude SH
94 Nissan Pathfinder SE (company car)
94 Nissan Altima GXE (company car)
93 Nissan Sentra SE-R
90 Ford Taurus
82 Subaru 1.8 GL wagon
86 Fiat Uno 45S
1971 Mini Clubman
a few others, no Acuras yet (working on it). Most of the above not kept long enough for serious problems to be an issue. German cars had most problems, but have been (by far) most rewarding to drive and own. Also the German cars have been the cheapest to run, all you pay for is gas, tires and insurance.

lshenretty

I'm not especially a fan of Audis, but I don't think it's clear how much of a problem unintended acceleration was.

For those of you who don't remember it, the story was broken by 60 Minutes, which interviewed a number of people who had experienced it, including one woman who had killed her child in her garage when the car accelerated uncontrollably. She said that she pressed on the brake as hard as she could, but the car wouldn't stop and pinned her child against the garage wall. A very sad and scary story.

All the car magazines during that period had serious doubts about the claim. Car & Driver made the point that they had for years tested a car's (with an auto tranny) ability to accelerate by revving the engine while holding the car with the brake. They said they had always been able to hold any car with the brake, no matter how high the rpms, and no matter how powerful the engine, and without superhuman effort. The engine simply could not overcome the brake. Essentially, they said that what the woman claimed happened was impossible. The conjecture was she had hit the accelerator inadvertantly, thinking it was the brake, and then panicked and pressed on it as hard as she could.

For some time, I thought it was just a witch hunt spearheaded by 60 Minutes (and I do believe their journalism was very poor.) Then I met a guy who had an Audi that he loved. I asked him about the unintended acceleration, and he said that he had experienced it a few times. Sitting at a light, the rpms would increase to 3000 or so. He seemed to see it as a minor annoyance.

It seemed to me that the truth was somewhere between what 60 Minutes claimed and Audi's claim. In any event, it almost put them under, at least in the American market. It took them years to recover.

jcg878

Though I commend your focus on safety, you may be putting too much stock into the reliability record of a car that doesn't yet have one.

I am banking on it as well, but we'd be wrong to expect it just yet. Not enough people have wrecked their TSXs to be able to judge airbag performance. I'm sure there are stats for the Euro Accord, but I don't know them.

larchmont

I don't know specifically for sure either -- but as far as I know, there hasn't been a single Honda car in recent years that hasn't had a good reliability record. Assuming this is true, that's a great testimonial. It doesn't prove anything about the TSX, but it's a bet that I'll take any time.

BTW -- Anybody know if it's not true? I mean, have there been any Honda cars anywhere in recent years that haven't had good reliability?

darth62

The Honda Passport SUV that was based on Isuzu Rodeo was unreliable, but no Honda built vehicle has been unreliable (that I know of).