dom

Like sauceman said, 38K before taxes, frieght + PDI.

TSX Cman

gotcha. i thought we were talking about full price for the TSX.
anyways, i am very interested in making my TSX 240 whp, and i doubt future models of the TSX are going to be much faster than it is. i think that Acura feels that the TSX performs as well as they want, and only might make a type S or something if they hear it brought up enough.

biker

The problem with the poll is that in reality most car makers always package "other" things with a more powerful engine besides the more powerful engine itself.
Even the most customizable BMW 330 comes with more than just the 3.0 L I6 vs. the 2.5L I6 in the 325. And Acura is all about the package deal: take it or leave it - no customization allowed.
It would be nice to see a break down between the sales of the Euro Accord, Type S and Executive.
Me, I'd vote for the Euro Accord Type S for $22K (basically a TSX minus some of the fluff like leather, sunroof, nice seats,etc). Maybe by the time the USDM Accord and Euro Accord get re-done in 2007 they will share the same platform and Honda/Acura will allow such customization. One can hope.

larchmont

That's most of what I meant too, Dom.

dom

Yes I now see your point Larch and Biker but for the most part everything would still be the same. But thats still no reason IMO that Acura could not offer a second engine choice for this car.

And I still think its entirely possible that they can keep all else but engine the same and I think we'll see this in the future.

In the meantime 32 out of 52 TSX'ers would have opted for a more powerful optional engine. I think in relaity these numbers would be reveresed as the masses tend to buy whats cheaper (ie Accord 4 vs Accord 6)

larchmont

I don't see how you can say that, especially here, where most of us are very finely attuned to even slight differences about cars.

As both biker and I said about your main example, we think those two BMW's are quite different from each other besides the hp. But, to make the example even more specific to this poll, let's talk Acuras. As luck would have it, my main experience with this kind of thing is Acuras -- the '03 TL and TL-S, which is probably the most relevant possible example.

I wanna tell you -- IMO those cars are totally, totally different. And the differences besides hp aren't just coincidental things -- as far as I know, they were other changes that were put in specifically in order to make the extra power really "work" in the car. In terms of driving and riding experience, the differences were reflected in handling and ride, not just in power, and even to me (not the most sophisticated car enthusiast), those differences were great.

BTW -- If the other differences besides power are positive in favor of the higher hp car (as happens to be the case IMO in the examples of the BMW's and the old TL's), that wouldn't throw off a poll like this. But, again, the point is just that there are other differences, and in any particular instance those other differences might go the other way, so we can't assume anything. And also, different people might disagree about the direction of those differences.

dom

Larch like usual you are looking into things way to much here

All I know is this. BMW offers 2 engines choices for the 3 series (3 in Canada) Audi offers 2 engine choices for the A4. Saab offers 3 engine choices for the 9-3. Jaguar offers 2 for the X-Type, MB offers 2 for the C series. And I hav'nt even counted the M3, S4 and C32 AMG.

So these manufactueres feel that its important to offer multiple engines to cater to the largest audience possible. Its seems the Japanese (TSX. IS300, G35) don't feel the need to do so.

So we can agrue until we're blue in the face about how different a 325 is from a 330 or a TL from a TL-S, the fact remains that 85% of the car is the same (if not more) and 90 percent of the population will not see the little things that you and others here see. HP sells cars not the intricate handling differences that a 60/40 or 65/40 weight distribution makes. Did TL sales not increase when the TL-S was offered in 2002? The the CL not get another lease on life after the CL-S w/6MT was released?

Would the TSX not get a shot in the arm from a 240HP K24 with a 8000RPM redline? I bet it would and thats all I'm trying to figure out with this poll.

Never mind the minor differences that having more HP would make, MOST people don't see those things and only want more power/HP/performance. And thats the key here. A 240HP TSX would immediately shut all TSX doubters up. Unfortunately thats the way things are. HP sells.

I bet we would'nt have seen 1 negative TSX review if it had 240-250HP. The cars only shortcoming is its power. And since its obvious not everyone feels that was an optional more powerful engine would appease those who do feel that way.

larchmont

Wrong, I think -- or at least I think we can safely say that what you're saying isn't true of the people on here, which is who you're asking. In fact, I think the opposite is true -- 90% would see the differences -- and BTW they wouldn't think the differences are "little."

In fact, with regard to the examples we gave, I'm probably understating it. Is there anybody on here, even one person, who has driven both the '03 TL and TL-S and doesn't think there are significant differences besides hp?

Yeah, you're right about me looking into things way too much. But that's because every now and then I find something -- like here, for example.

dom

Larch, 18,000 + TSX have been sold and this board has what? 200 TSX owners that visit. What I meant is only 10% of people are anal enough to see the small differences while the other 90% only see numbers. HP, 0-60, 1/4 mile, Slalom, etc.

This site only accounts for a very, very, very, very small percentage of the population.

And I still think the diffewrences in handling between the cars you've mentioned is definently "Little" Acceleration is obvioulsy not little.

larchmont

OK, we're at a standoff on that. I do think what I said is true, and maybe others can weigh in on it too. The '03 TL/TL-S example is probably the best example. Does anybody who has driven both the '03 TL and TL-S think that there aren't very significant differences besides power? I'll be a little surprised if even ONE person says there's no significant difference, but in any event I'd bet that most people on here who've tried both cars do see very significant differences.

And here's why it's relevant. You're talking about ACURA, and you're talking about TSX. And to some extent I imagine you're trying to talk to Acura -- and this way of doing it isn't going to work. One of the things Acura strives for is a great balance of qualities. They reached a new level on this in the TSX, and arguably in the TL too. So, you're never going to influence them by talking about one aspect like hp in isolation, because it doesn't exist in isolation, and one of the main things about the TSX is how well harmonized everything is. When you change the hp, I think automatically you change everything else too -- but even if that's not an automatic thing, it still applies for all practical purposes, because the maker changes other things also. And maybe especially Acura. Regardless of how many people say "yes" to a poll like this, Acura knows that the results aren't particularly indicative, because even though a lot of people might think in the abstract that they'd pay such-and-such amount for extra hp, they don't know until they try the car and see what the car has been made into, which is usually a different kind of car than what you started out with.

The poll shows that a lot of people would like a TSX with more hp. But everybody knows that. It's just wild guesswork to say how much extra we'd pay, or even whether we'd want the car. Suppose the ride is much firmer? Or, for that matter, softer? You're making out like the HP issue is simple and knowable, and it's not. I guess the main reason it has my dander up so much is that it ignores how aspects of a car work together -- which IMO is the main thing that distinguishes the TSX, and, after all, the TSX is what we're talking about.

dom

I really do see your point and I understand the fact that the car would potentially be made into something else all together.

But loooking at this from the standpoint of an Acura exec or Acura salesman I don't think that you would tell a customer that the TL and TL-S have significant differences. You instead would explain the benifits of the TL and then say the TL-S has everything the TL has and more HP and crisper handling. You would'nt try to explain to the cutomer that although the cars look the same they are essentially quite different because of the extra HP the TL-S has? Do you see what I'm getting at?

To the untrained eye, someone who does'nt know much about cars, all they see are numbers and typically the bigger the numbers are, the better.

I understand that you can't vote in the poll because you don't know (nor do any of us) how more HP would effect the TSX. Would it be better, the same or worse. But I statrted this thread thinking that the car would be better in every concevable way (much like the TL-S is to the TL) and all for a reasonable amount of money. I figured 3k was reasonable.

And Larch snce when does ride firmness have to do with HP? Acura could I'm sure make the car ride exactly like the current version with simple suspension tweaking.

I'm guessing the 250HP TSX we'll see will be like what your reffering to. A harsh riding car without leather, moonroof, heated anything, etc TSX Type R but thats not what my poll was asking.

larchmont

Thanks for the great response, Dom. I'm not sure about that stuff about what the salesmen would say -- I don't see that it has much to do with what we're talking about (nor much to do with what car people would actually buy) -- but I agree totally with the gist of what you say.

About your asking what does "ride firmness" have to do with HP: Well, nothing per se, but in terms of what we're talking about, it has a lot to do with it, and the TL/TL-S example is a good illustration. As we've been saying, when they add HP, they usually change other things too. I don't know what all was specifically different between the TL and TL-S, but I'm pretty sure suspension was a big part of it -- and it affected the ride. I found a very significant difference between the rides (the S was firmer and yet somehow more comfortable at the same time), and it (and the handling) was the main reason I picked the S version, far more than the extra 60 hp.

But anyway I was just using "ride" as an example; there are a lot of other things that could also change, including handling (which was also very different between the TL/TL-S).

XPLORx4

This topic is so funny! What IF the TSX had a 240HP engine as standard equipment, and the price was $3000 higher? I bet you'd make a poll like "would you have paid $3000 less for a 200HP motor?" or "Would you pay $3000 more for a 280HP motor?"

The TSX is damn near the best balance of price, performance, and luxury currently on the market. If Acura had jacked up the price by $3000 for a more powerful engine as an option, then the price point might have steered buyers towards other brands (G35, 325, 330, IS300)... and then how many high-performance TSX's would be sold compared to "low-performance" versions...

Don't forget also that with a larger engine you might also get poorer fuel economy, which I'm sure would have become yet another poll.

dom

We could have polls until we're blue in the face, thats what this site is for.

But I just don't understand alot of the comments in this thread. Many of you are acting like the TSX is the perfect car and changing it any way would prove disastorous. I feel as though many of you feel the car does'nt need any more horsepower and already handles like no other car on the planet.

"If Acura had jacked up the price by $3000 for a more powerful engine as an option, then the price point might have steered buyers towards other brands (G35, 325, 330, IS300)... "

This statement for example. (I'm not singling you out XPLORx4 as thats has been said a few times in this thread and on this site in general.)

What does that mean? that the TSX is great only because its cheap? So if it had 250HP and cost 30K its should immediately be dismissed? So we love the car now but if it cost 3k more with more power and better handling you'd get a G35 instead? I don't get it?

The current version TSX has plenty of room left for improvement, its not perfect.

dom

I guess what I was trying to say with my salesman analogy is that Acura and its salespeople would not treat a car in the same line with more horsepower and a different car like your saying it is. To them and most people it has more power and better handling but its the same car.

I guess I did'nt explain myself properly.

I still don't get why people are agruing with this thread. Its okay for BMW, Audi, MB, Saab and Jaguar etc to offer optional engines that complement eachother perfectly but its somehow not okay for Acura to do it with the TSX because then it would cost to much and be too different. I don't get it?

XPLORx4

Domn,

I think the issue that's been raised is not that the TSX is "perfect" but that it's balanced.

Let me put it a different way: If you had a choice between a 240HP BMW 3-series and a 240HP Acura TSX, both costing $30,000 (assuming there were such things), which would you choose? Which do you think most buyers in this target market would choose? (Something tells me that the answer starts with "B".)

Should one pay a premium price for a vehicle that's not a "premium" brand?Acura is not that far of a stretch from Honda (as far as price and features). There are even those that say you can get more car for the money in the Honda Accord!

I personally think there's an excellent balance of performance and value (and aesthetics, too) in the TSX. Anyone can speculate as to what might have transpired if the TSX had been given a more powerful engine, but cost $3000 more... but it's merely speculation. (Sort of what this poll is all about. )

I can tell you one thing, though. If the TSX had only come out as 240HP for $3000 more, I wouldn't own one now. If Acura had made the engine an "option" I would have still opted for the 200HP, based solely on price. When I was researching a new car purchase, I didn't even consider the G35, IS300, or BMW products because they are too expensive. Frankly, the runner-up on my short list was the Mazda6s. In the end, I decided on the Acura because it seemed more refined, and had some extra features that the Mazda lacked even though the TSX had a less powerful engine.

But hey, you never know. Acura might re-think it's sales strategy now that they know the TSX is a winner. I mean, they only projected to sell 15000 units this year, and they've got that milestone licked! They gambled and rolled a 7, so maybe in MY2006 there'll be a TSX-S after all!

jcg878

I'll be the first heretic to say that I'd be driving the 240 hp 3-series. I love my TSX, but I was lured to it by the feeling of 90% of the 3-series performance for 75% of the price. I think Acura drew a lot of us in that way. Acura's pricing for the TSX got me and now that I have it and love it (so far), maybe I'll be a loyal future customer.

I can see the logic in offering another engine choice, in fact I agree with it. I just wouldn't choose it.