So I started thinking about something ...

99% of the time you've got to pay extra for an automatic transmission. Manual transmissions are just less complex and are just cheaper to make. Once in a while you will find a car where the manual version is more expensive..but this usually also includes a performance package. In other words you get better brakes, tires, suspension, with that manual. I think the TL is like this (not sure) , and the G35.

But on the TSX...us 6MT owners payed the exact same amount for our cars as the AT owners. Magnesium gearbox 6-speed or not...there is no way the 6MT car costs as much as the 5AT car to build. I say we got taken for at least $500 too much.

Now I'm not going to loose any sleep over this but it kinda ticks me off.

 

Maybe we wanna take another look at what our new resident academic philosopher, kevindick, said about MT/AT pricing:

http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...2896#post42896

I'm not gonna say it was controversial, but a coupla people just about shit in their pants.

 

Sounds right on to me. Unfortunately

If you guys think that's bad, just look at what Nissan is doing with the new Maxima.

The 6MT and 5AT models have the same base price. However, if you want the HLSD on the 6MT (crazy not to have on that torque beast FWD car) you *must* get the following option packages.

- Premium Audio Package (Bose): $1000
- Sensory Package (Leather, Heated Seats/Mirrors): $1350
- Preferred Package (Spoiler, Xenons, Memory Seats/Wheel): $1200

All that crap ($3550 in options total) which somebody might not even want just so that you can get the following which ought to be standard in the first place:

- Helical Limited Slip Differential: $350


0wn3d by marketing

 

The "old" e39 BMW 540i lists at $1700 more with the 6-speed manual than with the automatic. (They do throw in some other goodies.)

On the Chevrolet Corvette the 6-speed manual is a $915 option over the "standard" slushbox.

At least Honda is not charging extra for the manual transmission!

 

No doubt. Personally I would delete the heated mirrors, Premium Audio Package, Memory Seats, and most definitely the spoiler.

My philosophy is either do it completely ala carte or just one big package.

I like what Acura is doing with theirs though, for me. It's got all the right stuff to begin with, then you have your choice of transmission, NAVI-toy, and extra-sport...that's it. I know some on this board would rather have the options to delete certain items for weight savings, but Acura is trying to tailor to the semi-luxo crowd who couldn't give a damn. We might see a Type-R variant down the road, but I think Type-S is dead as we know it.

 

This is also the same BMW that charges an extra $450 for fold-down rear seats.

Bunch of money grabbers!

 

It is this type of packaging that all other car companies do that pisses me off. I'll take Honda and Acura's single choice options anyday.

 

I have the 6MT and I certainly don't feel ripped off. I got a car I really like for a price I was willing to pay and it includes more luxo goodies than anything within $5000. Doesn't look like anything other than a terrific bargain to me.

I think kevindick's comments in the other thread are pretty much right on. A lot of MT shoppers aren't interested in the AT, period. So any price difference is pretty much irrelevant. I know I would have been willing to pay more for the 6MT if I had to, because that's what I wanted. If I'd been willing to settle for an AT, I might have got an '03 TL-S or Accord instead.

 

thats what I was thinking they did also

 

I hope kevin's looking over here. They kicked his butt a bit on that other thread. Took it well though -- the dude's OK.

 

If Acura was only going to offer the TSX as a 5A OR a 6M in North America, they would choose to offer it as a 5A since there is a larger market (wouldn't sell nearly as many if it was offered as 6M only). Anyone can drive an automatic but not everyone can drive a stick. Admittedly, I don't know if manual trannys are more popular than automatics outside of North America.

Though the materials cost of an auto is more than a manual, the cost would be offset by productivity if Acura only had to produce automatics. They wouldn't have to adjust the assembly line for the smaller production run of manual transmission vehicles.

I'm sure all of you can think of cars that are offered in automatic only. Imagine, how you would feel if your 6M TSX became a 5A because Acura decided not to offer a manual gear box. Okay, some of the diehards would likely buy another car rather than drive an automatic, but you would miss out on the TSX and I'm sure you would agree that would be a shame.

Most cars sold in North America are automatics, so in many ways the automatic transmission can be considered the "standard", where as, the standard transmission is really more the like the optional upgrade.

Hmm, when I think of it that way, I start to wonder if the guy who wanted the manual should have paid more or at least, I should have paid less with the automatic transmission.

 

They sell more civics in AT that MT, but MT is still cheaper. I could give you about a thousand more examples. Like I said..in 99% of cases...AT is an option which you pay for. On the TSX...they built this "option" into the price and made you pay for it..even if you didnt want it. And no they dont have to adjust the assembly line casuing more expenses, or casuing them to lose money in any way. Besides .. in Europe MT are more popular than AT so there will be plenty of MT cars being produced.

I'm fairly confident that Acaura makes more profit per car off the 6MT.

 

Interesting discussion, a lot of good points.

And I think one answer to FDL's point is this: Even if they do make more profit on the MT, couldn't you say it's justified if that's a better and more apt version of the car? I mean, how many articles have we seen where it says that this car cries out for the MT?

I'm an AT guy and I love my TSX, but since day one I've accepted what I regard as a fact: I'm driving a second-rate version of the car.

Another way to look at it: Pricing the AT higher would suggest it's a better version, which it's not.

 

That depends on how you define "better". An AT is really a luxury option ....one that has become extremely popular and almost standard...but none the less..an option. Instead of shifting gears yourself..it shifts for you. Many people would think of this as "better". And most people..on all other cars..pay extra money to have this option..so that they dont have to shift the gears themself. I'll use my civic example once again .... a civic with the MT will be quicker..and will even get better gas mileage..but honda still charges extra for the option to have the more complex AT transmission installed.

I hear what you are saying about the TSX with the 6MT being "better" in the sense of performance and "fun to drive". And I guess at the end of the day any cars worth can best be defined by what people are willing to pay for it. But I still think it was a little unfair for Acura to mark up the 6MTs more than the 5ATs.

 

I raised this very same issue a month ago.

Quite frankly, I'm very relieved and glad that Honda is even offering the TSX in MT. Over the years, fewer and few Acuras were available with MT. In the past model year (2003) you had very few Acura model choices in MT: RSX, an NSX, or the Type S CL, which was loaded with features that I didn't care to pay for.

In 1990, I had to wait 5 months to get my 2-door Accord EX in manual tranny. I ordered it in December and took delivery in May.

As we saw increased popularity of cell phone usage in the past 10 years, we also saw decreased popularity in the MT car market. It's harder to shift while holding a cell phone and driving. Guess what goes? Perhaps with the laws recently enacted against those dimwits who don't know how to simultaneously talk on the cell phone and drive safely we'll see some of the MT market return?

Who hasn't seen the a-hole on the highway who swerves, ignores the flow of traffic, frequently changes speed, rides the brakes, and never signals because he or she is driving under the influence of a chemical substance, dementia, or cell phone--or all of the above? All of the observed symptoms are the same for the impaired states of mind.

 

Great, great point -- I've never heard it before but of course it makes total sense.

BTW is this accepted as a fact, that cell phones have caused a decrease in demand for MT?

 

Sorry, a little off topic but here's my theory.

When our parents and grandparents learned to drive they pretty much all learned on manual transmissions because automatics were rare.

As automatics became more common, more & more people learned to drive on automatics because it was one less thing to worry about when learning to drive. This in turn fueled demand for more cars with automatics.

Highway congestion has also helped automatic transmission sales. I see posters on this site who commute in heavy traffic torn between either choosing a manual or automatic transmission.

 

This is true, but let's not forget that the "other goodies" are the sport package. And that's one of BMW's only packages that's actually worth the money. Same with the G-35 (and TL? ).

I must agree with you here. That would have made me think a little bit. Whew!

 

Don't look at it as you getting ripped off for the manual tranny, look at it as us 5AT owners getting a great deal. I'm sure Acura could have sold the Auto for 1k more which is the norm in the industry but then realized the Auto was at a performance disadvantage and gave us a break.

 

The Honda United Kingdom website lists an extra charge of 1000 British Pounds for the 5 speed automatic over the 6 speed manual. That translates to just under $1500 US Dollars! So why does US Honda (nee Acura) make you pay the same for the manual?

To be fair though, UK Honda charges 300 British Pounds (about $500 US Dollars) extra for pearl or metallic paint. US Honda does not charge anything extra for this.

As a point of how well off we are here in the US, Honda UK lists a price of 22400 British Pounds for the European Accord Executive Saloon (i.e., sedan) with automatic and metallic paint. That translates out to $37000 US Dollars! This model is virtually identical in specs and equipment to the US Acura TSX with Navigation system, which US Honda charges $28990 for. So I guess in the end, we are nor getting ripped off after all.

 

Prices in the UK are artificially inflated by Value Added Taxes. Honda actually doesn't make the entire $37K off an accord. A better indicator of price would be from someplace like Germany

 

Sigh. The AT to MT performance difference has always been the case so why should Acura be different than anyone else?

This in general was the major thing that drove me away from Honda/Acura. First was lack of availability of an MT in many (most) of their V6 models, and then when they brought then back, they wanted the same as for the more expense to produce and maintain AT. They are taking something that costs them $500 U.S. or so less to produce and then charging the same price for it, simply because they can.

I note that if you buy an Accord EX, you pay $800 more for the AT. This happens in the LX Coupe as well. However, as soon as you opt for the V6 Coupe, Bang! Honda pops you the $800 for the MT, too.

There's nothing particularly wrong with charging what the market will bear, but you MT owners are unquestionably paying a premium for the TSX MT tranny that you would not be paying in most other models.

 

The problem with facts is that statistics get in the way.

A couple years ago, I read an article or two in the newspaper--or somewhere--that made this correlation. I do not recall the sources, but the analysts discussed an increase in AT popularity and suggested that MTs would disappear to a very small niche market.

And now that we see the TSX's AT incredibly delivering better gas mileage (hah, hah, petrol kilometerage?) than the TSX's MT, one of the advantages of MT over AT is gone.

 

What's the difference between Type-S and Type-R, please?

 

Thats a little tricky to answer because all those names are really marketing jargon. The type-s is more of a sport version..whereas the type-r is typically a race version. The TSX is already a euro accord type-s. So if they brought over the type-r..i guess they could call it a type-r...or even a type-s. How knows. Like i said its all marketing.

 

A few characteristics of a Type-R Honda include

- Removal of sunroof
- Less weight by removing frills & sound detoning materials
- Sport Seats
- Always a Manual Tranny
- Strenthened frame/body. Basically better and more frame welding
- Improved brakes
- More power

 

Actually I thought it was the other way around.....

(Really!)

 

What?? So if everyone drove a stick, then none of these would happen?

Dont forget the upgraded suspension, lighter rims, and u cant for get the popular "Red H or A badge" and the "Type R" sticker.

 

No, I didn't say that. I wasn't advocating that everyone should drive MT or AT.

The articles that I have read said that people have been buying even higher percentages of ATs due to the popularity of using mobile or cell phones while driving.

Driving stick under the influence of cell phone, chemical substances (alcohol, drugs, etc.), or dementia would be harder to do.

And what's a common symptom of driving under the influence of cell phone? If you observe _some_ people driving under the influence of cell phone, it looks like the exact same symptoms as someone driving drunk or demented. Who hasn't seen a drunk or demented person drive on the highway? It's scary. And in reaction to that problem of driving under the influence of cell phone, some communities have enacted laws to curtail that.

Ahhh, so the red H or A badge indicates Type R? I've seen those, but never knew what they were for. Learn something every day. Thanks.

 

Statistics can let you hoodwink and distort the data to the point of making some statistics useless and meaningless, but make good marketing collateral.

And that's a fact!

 

The good thing is that a manufacturer has to decide whether or not to sacrifice MT diehards--such as myself--to competitors who do offer MT. I guess for a while Honda/Acura were hoping that we would just buy the ATs by making MTs scarce or unavailable. I don't think so! It's a game they have played before and are doing now, IMHO. Scarcity also plays into the hands of some dealers who jack up the asking prices several several thousands of dollars above MSRP. Those scarcity and sales tactics are not in the interests of serving the consumer.

If the TSX were not available in MT, I would not have considered it, but I also would have been frustrated at why the JDM and Euro Accords are available in MT.

Does anyone know the break-down between AT and MT TSX sales?

 

Personally I would have paid $500 more for the 6SPD...I'm with Brad, if the TSX only came in auto I wouldn't have considered it. Most likely would've just got the Accord EX-V6

 

Strange that we still don't know this. We've had a thread or two about it, and didn't really get to any bottom line. You would think it wouldn't be hard to get actual data on this.

I got the impression it might be about 20% MT. I myself guessed a lot higher, but then saw it had to be lower.

 

If the TSX were not available in MT, I probably would have done one of two things:

- Kept the old Accord, or

- Bought a Mini Cooper S (Imagine that NOT being available in MT!!! Unthinkable!!! That says something.) (Call it a chick car. I don't care.), or

- Mulled a CRV, if it's available in MT. (I don't care whether MT is 5-speed or 6-speed.), or

- Bought an Accord coupe but understand why I have to squint when viewing it at certain angles. (It's a very dated and alienating styling that reminds me of a big brother to the Ford Escort-based Mercury Cougar.), or

- Waited four more years for a decently-styled US Accord. (Usually the Accord's body shell styling changes every 4 or 5 years. Let's hope the Accord's current bloated belly awkward styling has a quick short lifespan.)

 

Not that I'm taking offense to you guys saying you would'nt have bought a Auto TSX :'( But I'm wondering is it just because you absolutely wanted a manual or because your disappointed with the performance of the Auto?

I'm thinking its because of the performance as dabuda stated he would have gotten an Accord EX V6 (Sedan I think)

The performance gap between the Auto and Manual TSX may only be 1 second through the 1/4 mile if that, so I'm not sure where you guys are going with this.

I think its time we line up an 6 Sp vs Auto TSX and see how big (or small) the gap in performance is.

 

I absolutely wanted a manual. I have not driven the auto, I'm sure it's fine. I don't really care about some small performance diff one way or the other. I don't hate automatics, I have them in other vehicles. But for me driving a stick is a big part of the "fun to drive" factor. It was a non-negotiable, must-have item.

 

Performance is absolutely not an issue with me. The only time I drive auto-tranny cars is when I'm forced to (have no choice), such as on a business trip or holiday and I have to rent a car. With an auto tranny, I feel like I'm not driving a car, per se. It dislike the hunting that many auto trannies do.

I agree wholeheartedly that a half second or a second makes no difference in performance. For that matter, I would argue that a 4 cylinder 5MT Accord's performance, which has the same K24 engine as does the TSX but with a trifle less HP, is a fair contender if you put aside that atrocious body styling. The Accord's K24 is smooth, quiet, and "quick" too.

 

Its not just performance as defined by 0-60. Its about being connected to your car, its about keeping the revs in the sweet spot, etc. When you want the power its there...and that is more important in 4 cyl cars in general where there is less torque down low. You can just squeeze more out of the engine with the 6MT.

The 6MT also has slightly better weight distribution which may help it a bit in the handling department ... and finally there is the fun to drive factor.

 

When I just started working, I drove a manual 3rd Gen Accord from Seattle to Redmond across Lake Washington. Stick may be fun in some situations, but for 5 days I had to sit in the traffic morning and evening. (And during the weekend it was cruise on the highway.)

Sooner or later, every one in America will get stuck in the traffic daily. You'd wish to take the bus.

 

Yes, when I am stuck in traffic I wish I had an AT.