cp3117

Actually the Jetta has had very positive reviews from initial owners on CR, given its a completley redesigned model and VW reliability issues in the past.

The overall reviews on the Jetta have also been very positive, with the Jetta edging out the TSX in 2 of 3 comparisons....

It seems C&D where impressed with the production model they tested this time (performance wise) rather than the pre- production model they had in October for the "10-best cars" trial....might have been an interesting outcome if they had this car.

cp3117

Yes this would have been nice to see in here also.

03CoupeV6

THANK YOU!

I have a 2005 EX-V6 coupe and a 2002 Acura TL-P. At around 33k the TL had to go in for service that turned into a nightmare (incompetent dealer) and I was given a 2005 TSX loaner that I got to keep a full month. During that time, I compared my 05 Accord (3000 miles) to the TSX (400 miles) and I'm here to tell you, all this talk about the TSX being better built is hands-down There is no difference in build quality. Both Accord and TSX exhibit some rattles - the Accord has not one misaligned panel anywhere, inside or out. But I found a misaligned part in the TSX interior on the right side of the dash.

Acceleration was no competition. The TSX eats the Accord's dust every time.

The Accord and TSX steering both feel the same to me, like in your obvservations. The driving dynamics are almost identical. In fact, there is very little weight difference between the two, and both cars have exceptional steering.

My Accord has Turanza EL41s and they suck, but the Accord handles itself extremely well. I alternated cars, driving Accord one day and TSX another, down the same roads. The Accord handles just as good, again, proved by your numbers.

Aside from VSA (addressed for 2006) and HIDs, the 2005 TSX had nothing on my 2005 Accord. In fact, my Accord cost less and offers superior performance. The sound system in both cars is seriously lacking IMO, and they are otherwise almost identically equipped. Lots of the switchgear is the same.

I liked my month run with a TSX, but it would have cost me almost $2k more for a TSX than I paid for my Accord V6. The Accord has leather, XM radio, heated seats, a power roof, dual climate - it's San Marino Red with a spoiler, a very attractive car. I would have been paying $2k for VSA and HIDs, while worthwhile features, weren't worth a $40 month increase in payments. My observed gas mileage for the month resulted in identical figures for both vehicles, probably due to the TSX engine having to work harder but the Accord only required regular so expenses for it were less. My TL has HIDs, so really the only thing I don't have on a car in my garage is VSA - but I'm happy with my picks.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but there's a lot of misinformation spread around this forum about the TSX's USDM sibling - while the outside of the US Accord is not as attractive as the TSX, the Accord offers and amazing combination of performance and price that the TSX just can't match. But then again, I suppose it wasn't designed to cannibalize the USDM Accord.

Black_6spd

I'm glad the two of you LOVE the Accord. There's a reason why it's sales have been strong for years. My point in my earlier post is the fact that after all the so-called superior handling and acceleration is beat to death, in the end, it's an Accord. The typical image that comes to mind with an Accord usually is the family-oriented / conservative personality -- even if the Accord was 20x 'faster'.

On the other hand, the TSX attracts a totally different customer base. It attracts a younger customer base with its sportier styling and other youthful characteristics. As a former owner of an Integra (see avatar), I still wanted the high-revving feel of a vtec (on both cams ) with agile handling. For owners like me, straight line acceleration wasn't the decide-all factor. Otherwise, I would've got a Dodge Magnum with Hemi or a Camaro with an LS-1.

I'll restate my point made earlier: The Accord is a great car, but you'll be hard pressed to find a die-hard enthusiast community for it.

absolude

[QUOTE=cp3117]Actually the Jetta has had very positive reviews from initial owners on CR, given its a completley redesigned model and VW reliability issues in the past.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2363456

batman

I have driven an AV6 AT and the 4cyl MT and the hanlding and felt a little softer than the TSX. I never got I take either for a spirited drive but I will say that the accord is much better daily driver on the crappy DC streets. When it comes to the twisties it's the TSX all the way.. I find it hard to believe that the accord handles as good when pushed. Both car have diferent high and low points. When I go back home I will steal my sister's av6 and take it on some back roads.

teranfon

I have to disagree somewhat with your last point. As mentioned earlier I had a very hard time deciding between a six speed Accord coupe and TSX, eventually deciding on the Accord. It and the TSX were within a few hundred dollars of each other. And again, it I had to decide once more it wouldn't be any easier. I agree that the TSX has a more nimble feel to it, but the Accord, and again my experience is with the six speed, is still a very enjoyable car to drive. I test drove each car several times and although each exhibited subtle characteristics, I found both to be more than satisfactory on a performance level. I consider myself somewhat of a car enthusiast as the Accord shares it garage with a Grand National, Corvette ZR-1, and Lightning pickup, and I actually find the Accord a more all around entertaining car to drive than the previously mentioned three.

Terry

MSZ

The same C&D sport sedan test from October 04 says otherwise about TSX's handling:

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=6

TSX > Accord, who cares if Accord's 0-60 time can be done in 3 seconds?

Black_6spd

Just to be clear, you disagree that the Accord is percieved as vanilla regardless of how fast it is 0-60? Again, I have no doubts that its a great value with suprising performance.

I just think that you have to take into account that the same lightning fast Accord litters the highways, schools, and soccer games with an identical-looking LX model that the casual observer can't distinguish from the sporty V-6.

Zasker1

I have driven both cars and most of the points here are pretty valid, the Accord is a pretty good performer but imagine if the TSX had a v6 option. Hands down the TSX would be a better way to go. When I got my new car back in 04 I went with the TSX as it is a much nicer looking car than the Accord or Mazda6 IMO. Also when I looked the 04 accord v-6 manual was selling for about 4k more than I paid for my TSX

teranfon

On the point of appearance I would certainly say that the TSX is a nicer looking car. It was what first made me consider the car in the first place. I find the TSX, especially in black, to be a beautiful car. And I agree that there are far more Accords on the road. That being said, I see far less six speed Accord coupes that TSX's. Before delivery of mine I had all emblems removed, and you would be amazed at the people who recognize it as a six speed by the wheels alone. I can say now that the car's stealthy appearance is one of attributes I enjoy the most.

Terry

Black_6spd

Your car would be even more rare here in Southern California where a HUGE percentage of Accords and TSXs are auto. Hope you enjoy the added power and extra room in the Accord.

Just curious, what RPM does VTEC kick in for you? Is it noticable or only subtle like the one on my wife's Honda Pilot?

teranfon

Shortly after 5000 rpm. This is my first Honda product, and I admit I thought Vtec would be much more noticable. It is a very subtle. I would say I hear it more than feel it. The six speeds have a slightly different intake, so it may be this that contributes to the increase in noise. It does, however, sound very nice!

Terry

STL

The problem here is C&D added the $2k non-perf option (navi) on both the Accord and TSX when they could have spent that $2k on summer tires instead (or the A-spec pkg in the case of the TSX) and that likely would have made a much bigger difference in performance numbers. Or they could have left the navi option off the Accord and TSX and left the wheels/summer tires option off the GLI. Would either have been enough to change the outcome, we'll never know -- but it sure seems like C&D added the navi option to handicap two cars and the wheels/summer tires option to help the GLI.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

C&D tests the cars they are provided by the manufacturer, not cars they request with specific options. While I agree that the options should not have a huge effect on the overall value, there is almost no way to guarantee that manufacturers will send equally equipped cars. It's just the reality of having fleets of press cars.

Ellswrth

This is quite accurate. Manufacturers have every right (and opportunity) to make their products seem most appealing to the press who will drive and write about them.

However, something which made me curious on reading the article is the disparity in straight line performance between the two Jetta's that C&D tested. The comparo car was .7 of a second faster to 60MPH than the first production car they drove ... that's 10% variation car to car, folks. Lot of performance gain from break-in. Apparently VW found the perfect Jetta for the fleet. Or just maybe those fancy tires are good for more than just roadholding.

Anyone here remember C&D's test results of the Chevy Citation X when it hit the streets?

dipkat

Adding the perf option still would not change much. It would probably improve the braking and the handling a bit. An important point that everyone seem to ignore is the fact that the TSX is very underpowered. Firstly, it was the only 4-banger engine in the comparo and was competing against 6 cyls and the GLI's turbo charged 4 cyl. Just out of curiosity, I compared the dyno tests of the stock TSX, GLI and my current 95 Nissan 200 SX SE-R.

2006 Jetta GLI
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2319239
(just view the curves for the stock and ignore the chipped)

2006 TSX :
http://www.vtec.net/articles/article...sx5at_dyno.gif

1995 Nissan 200 SX SE-R
http://www.se-r.net/car_info/dyno/

It takes about 4000 RPM for the TSX to reach a 100hp, when for a car of that weight, you ideally want about 100hp delivered at by 2500 RPM which is what the Jetta is doing....also the Jetta rated at 200hp at 5500 RPM therefore if you scale the TSX down to 5500 RPM the TSX is probaby making 150hp (Ideally you'll never go beyond 6000 rpm & vtech kicks in at 5800 rpm). Or you do the other way round you can scale the Jetta to 7000 RPM & the Jetta could be making about 250hp. With the DSG in picture & a 6A, overall will all of this in picture the Jetta is anywhere between 25% to 35% more powerfull than the TSX which will make daily driving much more fun.

Also interestingly, there’s a quite a gap between TSX numbers for torque & HP @ crank compared to what is available at the wheels.

@ crank

Max. Torque = 164 ft-lbs @4500 RPM
Max. HP = 205 HP@ 7000 RPM

@ wheels (as per the dyno)

Max. Torque = 140 ft-lbs @4500 RPM (95% or more approx. 130 ft-lbs @ 3000 RPM, 130 ft-lbs@4000 RPM - flat torque curve from 3000 – 5500 RPM)

Max. HP = 175 HP@ 6600 RPM (140 HP@6000 RPM)

The above tells that there’s approx 15% torque loss and 20% hp loss in the drive train

Compare this to the dyno of my stock 200 SX SE-R

http://www.se-r.net/car_info/dyno/

Max. Torque = 133 ft-lbs @4200 RPM
Max. HP = 140 HP@ 6000 RPM

Now factor in the curb weight for both the TSX and the 200 SX SE-R.

Curb weight TSX = 3345 lbs.
Curb weight 200SX SE-R = 2375 lbs.

I think overall, the TSX will perform just marginally better than my 200 SX, given that it has 5A and better mechanics due to 10 yrs of technological advancements.

Now if you analyze the dyno for the GLI and read the corresponding discussion on the thread, you will find that VW has underrated both the torque and the HP number at the crank. The numbers that they have specified are actually at the at the wheel. And the dyno shows max torque (excluding the spike at 2400 RPM) is 215 ft-lbs @2600 RPM. 2 conclusions can be derived from this. Either there is no loss of HP in the drive train (due to the DSG and other mechanics), or the HP at the crank is much higher. The same applies for the torque numbers too.

Curb weight Jetta 2.0T = 3303 lbs.

It is a know fact that with there is quite a loss of power and torque in the drivetrain due to the torque converter. With the DSG, the torque converter is eliminated and you see that there is minimal loss of power and torque from the crank to the wheels.

Just my

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Well, keep in mind that vastly different ambient conditions can provide vastly acceleration times. Also, different drivers and different launch techniques can have a huge impact as well.

That said, the difference is pretty large so I would like to see the details of each specific test to better judge how much of a difference would be feasible and reasonable.

STL

You should have omitted the "very" then you might have a valid point with some people.

That's just your opinion...and definitely not mine! BTW, I think you mean VTEC (because vtech is a phone manufacturer).

But you forget if you rev'd the Jetta's engine up to 7000rpm it would likely explode -- so your point is entirely moot.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

dipkat, it is your opinion that the TSX is underpowered. My question to you is: compared to what is the TSX underpowered?

It performs well enough against competition in its class. And people who want more power can always step up to the slightly larger and more powerful TL.

The more you post, the more you seem like a VW fanboy. While I do not deny the fact that the GLI is a decent car, your incessant reptition of the TSX being underpowered is getting to be a tad .

dipkat

I am as much of a fanboy of the GLI's power train, as I am about the TSX's luxury features and reliability. As much as the TSX is underpowered so is the GLI understocked on luxury features and looks

- No bluetooth
- Sucky Navi
- No Voice ID
- Fugly Corolla looks

I am just trying to point you guys in the right direction as to why the GLI was rated as numero uno in the comparo. It is the low-end torque and the power. If the TSX had that, dude .... it would have been rated as #1.

The Dyno charts tell the facts and not which car I like.

dipkat

Alright, lets remove the 'very' if thats what it takes to keep em TSX'ers happy and satisfied. Maybe you would also like me to modify the dyno charts too? The whole point its that the VTEC does not kick in until 5800 rpm and then there's only a narrow power band until the red-line 7000 rpm to get the meaty power. How much in everyday driving does anyone even really go that high?

waTSX

.
And that's not just "underpowered," that's "very underpowered."

waTSX

Altering your misrepresentations of the TSX are not what keep me satisfied. Driving my TSX, however, most certainly does.

Black_6spd

"Scaling" the Jetta would be totally useless since that power does not exist at that RPM for the inefficient VW motor. To add balance, you could also "scale" the TSX with a turbo and add another 50hp / 50lb-ft.

"More fun" is totally subjective. Many of us TSX drivers love the high RPM feel that's similar to the experience of driving other well-made motors in the S2000, M3, M5, Ferrari 360, and Integra Type R. What do all those motors have in common? They're all high revving, normally aspirated motors that take advantage of its displacement. Obviously, this isn't everyone's cup of tea. Seeing that you're obviously in love with the Jetta low RPM powerband, you'll most likely be impressed with the feel of driving a Dodge Magnum w/ Hemi. Both cars get you power at low RPM -- something that isn't impressive of ANY high displacement motor or FI assisted motor.

You're probaly familiar with the equation for HP:

HP = Torque x RPM / 5500

Keep in mind this is IDEAL HP. When you take into account cam lobe designs, heat losses, frictional losses, etc you arrive at a power curve. Why is power at high RPM so impressive? That's because it's a good indicator of a well-designed motor that minimizes the heat and frictional losses at high RPM. This can only be achieved through optimum tolerance stack-up studies, selection of materials, machining processes, etc. A sloppy design translates into the losses affecting the motor efficiency earlier in the curve.

spotch

Nissan se-r's stopped being hawt when the 1st generation neons started stomping their nuts at auto-x courses across the country (I had a 98 neon sport, I know all about it ). Short of a de-t swap the b14 se-r is nothing spectacular. The only one worth owning IMHO is the b13, and that's only because they're great cheap little pocket rockets. Comparing a 10 year old sport compact to a brand new luxury car isn't exactly the best comparison, it's not like Acura was building the TSX to try to take down a 10 year old sport compact.

Belzebutt

On the Accord vs TSX thing, there seems to be two camps here, those who think the Accord handling is the same as the TSX, and those who don't. I test drove both the Accord V6 4-door AT (many people don't specify which they tested) and then I tested the TSX AT. When I drove the Accord V6 I compared it with my old Accord Coupe on summer tires, and I noticed it had more body roll and felt more boat-ish and less sporty. The AT transmission had no fun factor whatsoever, and mushing the gas pedal produced what felt like slightly more acceleration than I was accustomed to but did not greatly impress me. Having said that, I'm sure it was the best car in its class, I really liked the interior, and if I was in a market for a family sedan with a bit of a sporty feel I would have bought it.

When I took my first onramp in the TSX I *immediately* noticed the shaper steering, less body roll, and a general sportier feel. The AT transmission was the most fun AT I've ever tried, and even while I could feel less acceleration than with the Accord, the difference felt very minute and this was a very small factor in my purchasing decision. When I drive to work every day I pass all the other cars and I make all the lights I need to make, so I feel the TSX is fast enough for me. I tested other cars like the G35 AT and the 330i AT and I can honestly say that to me, the acceleration difference seemed very small. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but where other people feel a great difference in acceleration I just don't feel it, and where they don't feel the difference in handling I do feel it. I guess the TSX is designed more for people like me.

I also have to admit that a good 50% of my decision was based on looks, and the TSX just looked the nicest of all the cars I seriously considered.


. . .


About the Car & Drive comparo, I do think it's a bit unfair to test one car with optional sports tires and the other without, but also you can't expect C&D to only make comparisons when every car has exactly the same equipment, it's up to the manufacturers to supply cars they want to win with, and obviously Acura should start supplying the A-spec wheels and tires. Can't you buy the A-spec wheels/tires as a separate option nowadays? You should.

In the end, what a reader should do is apply their own weights to all the areas C&D tested and factor in whether they would buy 18" wheels with the Jetta, whether they would buy the nav system etc. and based on what they consider important whether they would give the same scores to the cars. The C&D comparisons should be one data point in your shopping decision, but not the only data point. I give them a lot of value when it comes to deciding which car would be more fun to own, but when it comes to value, styling and interior feel, those are things don't look at C&D for.

jlukja

^^ very well said.

dipkat

By that anology, your 98 neon sport should also be able to kick the TSX in the nuts !?
No disrespect, but since this is a 'comparo' thread, I am putting forward my comparo based on the dyno's. It would be nice if the editors at C&D, Edmunds and others also included a simul comparo analysis based on the dyno's besides purely relying on driver opinions and marketing numbers. There is a lot of hidden truth in these dyno's. When you compare the dyno's there's little difference b/w what my '95 SE-R and the '06 TSX can do at lower-mid RPM's (at-least on paper) where most of the daily/normal driving occurs. The TSX can definitely do with a boost of 40-50 ft-lbs and HP to up the ante on the GLI's and Mazda Speed 6, etc. In the meanwhile, it will undoubtedly be compared to likes of these whether the member's of this forum like it or not.

CarbonGray Earl

^^ you are comparing Dynos not cars - this was about a car comparison. I could care less if a SRT4, WRX, SE-R, or even crate-motored Camaro can beat a TSX in a dyno.

If you want to start talking about the merits of having a higher powerband, what this means to everyday driving, etc, I suggest you read about 10 years worth of Honda-tech/team-integra/edmunds/C&D forums, when this was discussed ad naseum in just about every car forum ever conceived. Heck, even go to a Ridgeline forum, and you'll see arguements about its powerband, compared to the so-called "everyday" usability of trucks with peak torque at a lower RPM.

I just don't feel this merits any more discussion....your "insights" into what a usable torque curve might be obviously do not jibe with the majority Honda/BMW/Ferrari enthusiast, who believe as HP = Torque x RPM / 5500. Black_6spd put it most eloquently in his post...and he is an engineer by trade and by degree. I would tend to agree with his reasoning rather than yours, dipkat.

Bottom line, compare cars not dynos....drive a TSX vs. 95 SE-R 1000 miles and see what 10 years of changes in ergonomics does. Better yet, why don't we just crash the 2 together and see what 10 years of safety advancements has done. And you say you dyno similar at low RPMs? Big deal.

teranfon

I imagine I would be from neither of the two camps you refer to. As mentioned, my Accord coupe is the six speed model, with the larger front brakes, 17 inch wheels, 215's, strut bar, and revalved dampers. These items were not available on the 05' V6 automatic. I have already mentioned that the TSX is more nimble, but the six speed Accord is certainly no "boat". It appears that most people here compare the TSX with the V6 automatic model, and not the Accord with the afformentioned upgrades. That being said, at the same time I purchased an 05' Accord hybrid for my mother, and the few times I have driven it I notice its handling is not equal to my six speed, but is certainly no "boat" either. I have little faith in the reports of automobile magazines, but is this instance C & D reviewed the latest Accord sedan with the available six speed. Perhaps the upgrades that are available on the six speed coupe are available on its sedan counterpart for the 06' model year. I have noticed that, at least in Canada, seventeen inch wheels and the strut bar is now standard equipment. And the car apparently has a tweaked suspension as well. So while TSX will certainly continue to be the premium car, it appears Honda has chosen to narrow the gap somewhat with the 06' V6 premium Accords.

Terry

spotch

I dunno, i've never autocrossed a tsx before. I do know that the TSX has a better suspension design than the neon, which was even better than the b14 sentras (at least the neon had an independent rear suspension). The springs/dampers may be softer because it's an entry level luxo sedan but as far as geometry goes, double wishbones > macpherson struts and rear twist beams. And frankly I wouldn't care if the TSX was faster than the neon or sentra at all, since the TSX wasn't built to outrun 2400-2500 pound sport compacts around a short race track. I was just commenting that even for the cars that it was built to compete against I thought the b14 se-r's did a poor job, not to mention against a car that's much newer and in an entirely different class. In your comparison based on dynos the k24 absolutely annihilates the sentra's sr20 engine and only holds water when you factor in weight, which is kindof rediculous because one car is a 10 year old compact car while the other is a brand new car with way more luxury options, a way nicer interior, larger wheels and brakes, way more airbags, a stiffer chassis, a bigger engine, more gears, etc. That's like me glueing a 50cc scooter motor to a unicycle, dynoing it and then bragging about how it' destroys all other cars in the hp/weight category. Sorry, but in this discussion your sentra has pretty much nothing to do with anything. It lacks a good number of the standard features of the cars in the comparo and is much older as well as not even being in the same class. (A brand new altima would've been a better argument to make...). As far as needing a 40-50hp boost, it definatly wouldn't *hurt* the tsx to magically give it 40-50hp but after driving the tsx and the accord v6 back to back the tsx definately doesnt *need* the extra hp to be the better car. Of course that's my opinion but its based on a bunch of test drives of these cars and others in their class.

absolude

...and still the TSX is faster 30-70 compared to the jetta. It is faster when it matters, lasts more than 20mi. and even the brakes work. Unlike others:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2363456

Belzebutt

As a former owner of an Accord coupe I totally agree that it's a different feel than the sedan. I did not drive the new Accord coupe, but I'm absolutely sure it handles much better than the sedan, especially an AT sedan with the softer setup. I can only speak about my comparison of the two cars I considered, I needed a 4-door car so the Accord coupe was irrelevant to me. I wish other people here would also specify whether they tried the Accord coupe because I can see how comparisons with the sedan can seem insulting to coupe owners like you

By the way, when I say "feels like a boat" it's just a relative term, it just "floats" more than what I'm comparing with, for example a TSX. So to me, the Accord sedan AT and G35 AT felt like a boat, whereas the TSX and 330i seemed very tight and very importantly, they felt like much smaller cars. I wanted a car that felt that way and had a quality interior with features like the dimming rear-view mirror all the while having Honda reliability and good looks (IMO), so the choices quickly narrowed to the TSX

I may have even bought the Accord sedan if I could stomach the looks

Ellswrth

I'd buy the ambient conditions explanation IF the TSX had shown similar variances. But their July 2003 test gave acceleration to 60MPH of 7.2 seconds, their October 2004 test yielded 7.5, and the current test 7.2 seconds.

I'm certain that their instrumented testing corrects to a given set of ambient conditions.

It's just interesting that in the purely subjective seat of the pants what the driver feels comparison that is the "10 Best Cars" the TSX was picked and the Jetta didn't make the cut. But when the numbers came into it for calculating the points, the Jetta went ahead.

Anyway, both cars are great cars relative to most everything else out there. We just prefer sake to schnapps.

STL

Actually it's not just a numbers thing. The C&D "test" has two subjective ratings (the gotta-have-it and fun-to-drive) in their total that allows them to skew the test to get the results they want.

Power1Pete

Just to clear things out, the 2006 Accord EX V6 6 Speed sedan (or coupe) has sportier suspension setup than any other Accords out there. So the 6 Speed should be more nimble than the one you test drove.

The TSX on the other hand, has better handling than all of the above. Even just by the numbers alone:

TSX MT:
Weight distribution, F/R: 59.9/40.1%
Curb weight: 3246 lb

Accord V6 6 Speed:
Weight distribution, F/R: 61.6/38.4%
Curb weight: 3371 lb

My .

cp3117

A month ago for the "10best" they where awesome and there was no complaints about the testing they did.

Now a month later they are corrupt in their testing...

mkaresh

I've driven the Accord V6 6-speed, coupe last year and sedan this year. The main difference between them is you sit a bit lower in the coupe, which makes the car feel a bit different.

In either car the suspension even with 6-speed is not as tight as that in an Acura. I liked the engine, but found the handling to be boring. Surprisingly, if you look at the specs the V6 Accord actually has a thinner rear stabilizer bar than the I4, and the same size up front. Since it weighs more up front, it should actually roll more in turns, not less.

My full review: www.epinions.com/content_210026860164.

Thus, I found it very surprising that C&D gave the handling and steering feel of the Accord the same rating as the tighter, more precise TSX, and knocked it only a point in the "fun to drive" area. That the MS6 only ties the TSX in "fun to drive" suggests that either ride quality is part of this factor, or that Mazda really missed the target with this car.

OTOH, in "gotta have it," the ultimate category for tilting the machine one's way, the TSX outscored the Accord and MS6 by two points. So they tried to give you guys a leg up.

Usually I disagree with people who dislike C&Ds comparisons. This time around, though, I'm quite confused.

waTSX

^^Your epinions review is very good, mkaresh