JoesTSX

Install a turbo and some stickier tires and we're back on top.

excited

The 1976 Civic CVCC (perhaps my all time most fun car) (My first brand new car which I paid cash for with the money I earned working lots of overtime during the summer)
I think it was in 77 or 78, the first Accord Coupe
Later in around 84 a Honda Prelude
In 86 a Honda Civic
I then went away from Honda as I was into trucks to pull my boats.
Had a few other cars in between but not anywhere near 50 of them. (I think 13 total)
This is my first Acura. It is fantastic right now. I want it still to be fantastic 7 years from now.



Excited

peter_bigblock

Come on, it's a VW. It will be worthless in five years, if it's still running. The TSX is, as C&D said in the 10Best, a classic. The Accord, on the other hand, is a terrific, if a bit ubiquitous, car with excellent manners and plenty of straight-line power. I found the sedan (you guys keep talking about the coupe, I need a sedan) a bit ponderous and soft for my taste, but it goes like hell in a straight line.

LannyM

No no, what I meant was all the other cars in this test fit in the basic car category.....

InsuranceGuy

Tell you what....... I just traded my 04 TSX for a 06 TSX and I tell you what. If a damn Jetta (doughnut box on wheels) and the new Accord (Ford 500 wannabee) beat out the mean machine I can hardly contain it must not be based on what counts.

htam

Out of curiousity, why did you trade in your 04 for a 06? Why not just keep the 04 or trade up to a TL? I'm planning to trade in my TSX for some car but having troubles making a decision. TSX is in a weird position. It is trying to compete with the 3-series, A4, IS, etc. But TSX is cheaper in price and not as good in terms of quality (especially comparing with the IS). Now, if I want to compare it with something in the same price range, there're the "family cars", WRX, Cooper-S, Jetta, (and maybe some other ones too? I just can't think of at this moment.)

I have to agree that Audi/VW is not as reliable. I had a '00 Passat V6 with manual transmission. I had it for almost 4 years. It was a fun to drive (plenty of torque and power in from 1500 - 6000 rpm range) but had some minor electrical problems (initially). And at the end, something went terribly wrong and even the dealer couldn't fix it. It was an electrical problem and something kept on shorting out and caused a fuse to blow. This fuse was somehow related to a computer and prevented me from starting the car. I had to have to tow 4 times in one month and that was when I decided to get the TSX. But anyway, the point is: I'm still kinda scared by the VW brandname.

As for the TSX, it's nice and reliable but it's lacking in build quality (I've got mine in late 2003). Honda is also cheap on their fog light lens! The TSX engine is a high rev engine. That means it has very little torque at the low end. This translates to "painful" to drive in bumper to bumper traffic (obviously, I'm trying a MT). But this car is definitely fun to drive when I rev-ed up the engine and much more reliable than the VW that I had.

ostrich

If I had to choose between those 5 cars, I would still go with the TSX. The TSX has the right "total package" and it's also a near-luxury car. All the others are not.

The Accord is a close second, but forgive me if I sound like a snob here - I would just hate to buy a car that is close to $30 and then know that there are lots of Accord "Value Package" models around and they cost only about 2/3 of mine and yet look almost the same as mine!!! Yikes.

VW Jetta - poor reliability and resale value. Usually it attracts the young buyers who want a European product but can't afford an Audi or BMW... they are usually very young...

Mazda - not refined enough. Styling is too boy racer-ish.

Pontiac - are you kidding me???

ExHack

When the last of the current model Jettas goes to the junkyard, a TSX will be waiting outside the gates to pick up the former owner. Hell, make that a mint-condition Legend GS.

fedlawman

My biggest beef with this test (and most tests) is that they don't put the same tires on every car in the comparo. The TSX is seriously handicapped by the OEM Michelin's compared to the GLI's 18" Potenza's.

Sure, the TSX has the least amount of torque, and that's bound to affect it in the point standings. However, with equal rubber it would have been a fair fight, and the TSX would have fared better.

swirlie

I don't agree with that. Yes, you want a standard set of parameters to test... BUT what they're comparing is the stock vehicle, as available from the dealership. If you go ahead and change tires, you're changing the vehicle from its baseline of "what's available". What's being tested is OEM equipment across the board. It's up to the individual manufacturer to choose that equipment. The average owner is not going to be swapping tires/rims immediately after getting a new car.

peter_bigblock

You are if you're buying a car with summer tires in December.

peter_bigblock

The TSX suffered from the numbers-based comparison, finishing last in the acceleration tests. The 10Best is all subjective, which, unless you drive around with testing equipment in your car, is why you buy a car like this.

That, and I do wish C&D would figure out a way to handicap comparing one car with optional summer tires to another car with all-seasons and then lament that the all-season tires can't compete. I guess they're just reporting the results of the cars as the manufacturers supplied them and you have to take it from there.

C&D was right, however, that the TSX needs the option of more sporting tires without having to pony up $3,000 (or whatever it is) for the A-Spec package. In the GLI, the 18" wheels/summers are an option but they stand alone for about $700. I hate options (that's what I love about Acura) but wheels/tires and AT or MT need to be the only two for the TSX. Same for the RSX and RSX-S.

jackacc

Legend GS...

sweet...

Sclass88

Got ya now!

spotch

Agreed, especially since they're doing it for the Si now... (200$~ summer tire option). If its good enough for the Si then they should include it for at least the tsx and rsx, and the accord v6 six speed too imho.

fedlawman

The "stock" GLI comes with 17" wheels and tires. The 40 series Potenza's that C&D tested are not something the "average owner" is going to be ordering.

If someone who purchases a GLI is willing to spend the extra $750 for the wheel & tire package, how is that different from someone purchasing a TSX and then buying a $750 set of Goodyear F1's?

peter_bigblock

C&D has to be able to make some handicap for the obviously huge difference the tires make, unless both cars come only with the tires tested. Acceleration, braking, lane-change, slalom, fun-to-drive -- basically every factor is affected by the difference between the all-season cruiser tires that are standard on both the GLI and TSX, and the optional Bridgestones on the GLI.

Not saying the TSX would have out-accelerated it or anything, but especially with the TSX being a jack-of-all-trades, a couple extra points in each category may have changed the end scoring since only 11 points separate the GLI, Accord, & TSX (if I remember right).

Zephrem

To be fair, I've driven the Jetta and it is a wonderful little car (I like the TSX handling and shifting better, obviously).

Unfortunately, I had the opportunity to drive it while a Passat was in the shop. [We ventured to VW after being a Honda family b/c Honda didn't make a wagon and the Consumer Reports gave the Passat an "average" reliability rating. Our loss after the VW became unfixable after 33K miles. The night I took the Passat in, the VW service manager told me they received 22 flatbeds with dead VWs that day, and they wouldn't be able to fix my car for a week.] The VW quality control and its dealer network leave a lot to be desired. One look at VW sales and one can see that its mistaken forays into the lux market (Phaeton, now being discontinued in NA and the problem-riddled Touareg) have hurt the brand, although there is a slight bump for the Jetta and Passat in the last couple of months due to new model introductions.

The bottom line is that we buy a car for many reasons, including handling, power, reliability, dealer service, and cost of ownership. The TSX is superb in all of these categories for the large majority of us. The Jetta is great in two or perhaps three(handling/power and perhaps electronic wizardry), but no more. While rankings are nice, they simply don't calculate the value of having a car that runs great with minimal problems after 10 years vs. a car that you doubt because it has left you stranded on the side of the road and/or leaves your garage after 4 years because of mechanical failure.

swirlie

Ahh, didn't realize that. Ok then, the GLI should have ran with stock tires to be a fair comparison. Or C&D should have made a note of that, at the least. (I don't recall it even being mentioned at all in the article.) The closest thing they say to that is the "base price" vs "as tested price".

peter_bigblock

C&D made some oblique mention of the tire issue, basically saying that the TSX's Michelins held it back in braking and handling. My guess is that a TSX, shod with similar tires to the GLI's in this comparo, would have handled as well or better in some tests and scored high enough to be 2nd or even 1st.

The same, though, could be said for the Honda, which also suffers from HMC's insistence on offering only crappy all-seasons on their performance sedans.

crookedcpa

I have had my 2001 cls for 145K miles, the only problem I have had is that the rear view mirror stopped automatically dimming. It cost me $165. In 145K miles that is the only thing none wear related that I have needed to do. Not too shabby. One of my friends ordered a 325i in 2004. When it finally arrived it spent 18 of the first 32 days in the shop for electrical problems - three of them to be exact. Now that is an unreliable car!

HondaGuy347

Here is the text of the letter I just sent to C/D, about my biggest pet peeve in their (and other car magazines) comparison test.


It pisses me off so much when they test any Acura/Honda with a Nav against other cars without nav, and don't even mention it in the test. You can't add $2k of potentially irrelevant crap to a car (I love my nav, but in a sports sedan test it adds NOTHING to the car except price) and then compare it to the others.

Black_6spd

With all the so-called Accord bashing that takes place here, I don't think anyone will argue that it's a great car. Its just VANILLA. Case in point -- how many Accord message boards exist with enthusiasts? Not many. Also, the Accord IS a boat. I don't think I'll see one on the auto-X track in the near future.

On the other hand, the TSX driver prefers a more defiant / out-of-the-ordinary experience from driving.

peter_bigblock

The TSX got more like a 12-hp bump this year (I know it's numerically 200 to 205, but the hp reporting protocol changed so actually it's 200 to about 212). Still, that's an excellent letter, right to the point. They penalize the Acura and Honda because they happened to come with a non-performance option. Then they turn around and praise the Jetta's handling with a performance option (tires). I like C&D, but gimme a break. Don't compare apples and oranges. It would be like comparing one car with a 6mt and the other with an auto, and then saying that the 6mt required more shifting. Really?!

HondaGuy347

Well, I think technically it's about 192 to 205. But I know what you are saying. I was trying to keep the letter concise, and going through all that would have taken too many words. The average C/D reader only knows the brochure last year said "200," this year it says "205."

Thanks. It's been an issue gnawing at the back of my mind for a while, I had a free day so I thought, why not send a letter?

dom

Where is there any evidence to support this? I'm sure its in the neigbourhood of 10 to 15 but I don't think we've seen any dyno's to confirm this either way.

In the end, that extra HP according to CD's times have done absolutely nothing for the cars acceleration. And a slow track or poor conditions can't be blamed considering how quick the times for all the other cars in the test were.

CHILL

In the same theme as HondaGuy347, I also awhile back wrote a letter when Edmunds did a performance test of the Jetta and TSX......got no response:

To Ed Hellwig,

As an owner of a 2004 Acura TSX I found this article
to be a very fair comparison of the two vehicles. My
only question is why did the 2005 Acura TSX include
the navigation option for this comparison? I ask this
because you state:

"This was a close one. With a final spread of just 2
percentage points — in favor of the GLI — it's one of
the closest comparison tests we've ever had. Things
were so close that if you removed the nav system and
its associated price penalty from the TSX we're pretty
sure it would have been a dead heat."

It seems illogical to only add the navigation option
to the TSX and not the GLI (when both have this
option), and then penalize the TSX for having added
this option. If you had to add an option to the TSX
for this comparison, wouldn't it have been more
logical to add the TSX A-Spec suspension instead (same
price or cheaper than the $2000 navigation)? This
would have further enhanced the handling of the TSX
with a firmer suspension and more "sport", which would
have been better for a sport sedan comparison.

peter_bigblock

Exactly right, I do understand they test the cars as the manufacturer (or some dealership) delivers them and can't help that they have nav or upgraded stereo or whatever. But to have price be a factor, you have to factor out capricious options and compare cars apples to apples.

dj Dozhe

I don't know how much VW paid for that article, but obviously it was alot.

dom

Then how much did Acura pay to have the TSX, RSX-S and RL all win a comparo last year?

How much does Honda pay to have the Accord win EVERY comparo its ever entered into by C&D?

How much does Honda/Acura pay for at least 2 spots or more in the annual 10 Best?

It goes both ways.

Outside of the horrendous styling and possible bad reliability which isn't factored into these comparos the Jetta seems like a nice car. Great tranny and an engine when chipped that produces 250+HP and TQ. Sounds like a winner to me.

bbbuzzy

Many posters on this thread are bashing the Jetta. How many have actually driven the '06 GLI? I haven't and will defer any judgement until I do. It's probably a blast to drive and has a high level of amenities. VW's have great suspensions and lots of the Audi panache. Don't get me wrong, I own an '04 TSX that I enjoy daily. I also chose to sell my wife's '01 Jetta (Wolfsburg,1.8T), not the TSX, to get our XC70 for the growing family. The Jetta was fun to drive, a bit small on the inside, and horribly unreliable while under warranty and then perfect after the warranty ran out. We won't trust another VW/Audi product until they go 3 yrs with great CR reports. While I've owned 3 Acuras that heve been extremely reliable, if VW/Audi ever builds cars as relible as Honda/Acura, I'll try one out. The moral of this post, don't bash it if you haven't driven it.

dom

Sorry to say but many around here are unfortuantely Honda fan boys with there heads too far up their asses to give credit where credit is due.

I've been guilty of this in the past as well.

dj Dozhe

All I was referring to is the unfair price/value comparison due to the addition of nav. Other members of this forum wrote to them, and received no response. I would not assume to know how the new Jetta drives, only how it looks. Though this comparison was not about looks so I'll say nothing about that. I just think C&D kind of showed their underwear on this one. Sucks when it's that blatant.

dom

VW was given 20 points for price. The TSX and Accord 18, the Mazda 19 and G6 19. Even with the full 20 points the TSX would have finished with 206, the Accord 212 and the Jetta 215 so the results would have not been affected.

CHILL

I'll admit that I haven't driven a 2006 GLI (my sister has on '01 Jetta), but my point was not about bashing VW. The comparison seemed illogical, because using their own words it came down to price. Both cars have the same option for navi, but only the TSX had it thus the negative penalty. I actually think the '06 GLI seems real nice and in some areas is definitely better than the TSX (low end torque, SMG/DMG). Like others have said, I guess the average buyer won't change tires (at least immediately), but that "mod" alone changes the character of the car (handling and braking). In a perfect world, I'd like to see both cars with similar suspensions (A-spec for the TSX since it's Acura made, I believe the GLI already has a sportier suspension), the same tires, and no navi. I think that would be fair.

robbiec

I'd like to add my two cents on this one. First, some background about me. I first started trolling this board over a year ago when I was looking for a new car. I ALMOST bought an '05 TSX, until I drove the Mazda3. Decided that the handling and acceleration were equal and I couldn't justify the $9k price difference at the time, so I went with the hatchback. Absolutely no regrets- I love the car.

Anyway, my wife and I will be replacing her 1999 Saab 9-3 in the spring and we've been driving a lot of cars for the past 3 months. A3, A4, X3, 9-3, V50, Accord EX-V6, GLI... anything sporty with a manual transmission. We actually were able to drive the Accord and the VW back-to-back on the same day.

First, we drove the Honda. Beautiful car. Nice seats, huge back seat and trunk, great features and ergonomics. Unfortunately, it was missing that "fun-to-drive" factor that we are looking for. Next was the GLI. We went to the dealer fully expecting not to like the car for 2 reasons. First, we hate the new "oversized Corolla" styling. Second, my wife leased a 1999.5 Jetta for 3 years and experienced the same quality issues as everyone else. So she swore she'd never own another VW.

Unfortunately, the GLI was a blast to drive. Night and day comparison with the Accord. The interior is beautiful- on par with Audi (and Acura). Great seats, easy to use stereo and HVAC controls, awesome steering wheel, and giant trunk. Fun to drive, great handling, ride, and acceleration. Everything we need in a car. Needless to say, my wife was actually pissed that the car was so nice. What the test drive (and the C&D comaro) doesn't consider is reliability. How can anyone choose VW over Honda? Needless to say, we'll be test driving an '06 TSX this weekend. I hope to like the car as much as I did a year ago.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to add an unbiased review of the top finshers in the C&D comparison. Who knows what the rankings would have been if the VW was equipped with all-season rubber...

tsx8

In the last couple of years I've gone from a 2003 Acura CL Coupe to a 2005 RX-8 to a 2005 TSX. I far prefer the TSX - better handling than the CL, more comfortable than the RX-8, and a superb package all around. I test drove the new TL on several occasions and still prefer the TSX. The RX-8 even with great (and expensive snow tires) is strictly a summer car, and the inside fit and finish doesn't come close to the TSX. Price for me was not a concern. The TSX is a bargain, and a classic. After one day of ownership I completely forgot about the cash I lost getting rid of the RX-8.

cusdaddy

Sorry, but I would like to stand up for the Accord. I had leased a 2003 Accord EX (4-cylinder) and just picked up a 2006 Accord EX (V6 this time). In my mind, I was pretty much decided on the TSX as I read it was a better car, but after 2 test drives, I would be hard pressed to understand why it is superior from a handling / performance standpoint. The TSX was significantly less powerful, and while the TSX felt lighter, didn't feel much if at all different driving around town or even taking fast turns. You have to remember the TSX and Accord have the exact same tires.

The C&D numbers speak for themselves as well. The Accord beats the TSX in most categories and only loses out in braking by 3 feet:

Accord TSX
0-60: 5.9 7.2
1/4 Mile: 14.5 15.7
Braking (70-0): 180 177
Lane Change (mph): 62.6 61.7
Roadholding (skidpad g): .80 .80

In addition, I'm an active AutoX'er and for your information, both the TSX and Accord V6 are both in the G-stock category which shows there islittle to no difference in handling or AutoX capability between either car.

I'm not taking anything away from the TSX. It is an awesome car, but to call the Accord a boat is silly. Neither car is a sports car.

LannyM

I haven't driven a new 6MT Accord, but I have driven the 6MT TL, which I would think would be very similar in feel to the Accord.

To me, there's just too much weight up front to feel right, and I hate how the torque manifests itself in problems with the steering. I'm not saying that these cars can't put up better numbers, they just don't feel good when doing so to me.

But if you are happy with it, that's all that counts......

cusdaddy

The TL is definitely more front heavy than the Accord. I'd say the Accord is in-between the TL and TSX. All FWD cars don't really feel very right to me, regardless of the car (front weight biased, torque steer, bad turning radius, etc.). The TSX also still has a pretty large front weight bias compared to RWD cars for example. That's why I have a 350Z to drive for fun. My Accord is my daily commuter.

My only point in posting was that the disparity between the Accord and TSX isn't as large as some here were making it out to be.