peter_bigblock

That was the same dichotomy that I noticed. People get hung up on numbers because, esp. on a forum, they're objective things to argue over. All the cars get driven on paper. "This one goes 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, that one in 7.2, so this one is 10% more fun than that one." Etc.

My dad drives my TSX whenever I'm visiting and we take my car somewhere. He owns an RSX (stiffer and lighter and more "sporty" feeling) and a TL (quicker-accelerating and more luxurious feeling). But, every time he drives my TSX, he comments on how he wishes that's what he had had bought. He can't believe its precision as a four-door sedan, in it's power as a velvety and fun-to-rev four-cyl, its comfort as a relatively small car, and just how fun it is to drive -- even with my mother in the back seat. But if he had to drag race my mom's TL, or chase the RSX through a slalom, and give those results equal weight, then he'd have to report that the TSX was middling.

For people who want a sport sedan and don't have more than $30k, that balance of attributes is the whole enchilada. Of course you can buy a faster car, or a sharper-handling, or more lux, or more whatever car. You just can't buy four-door sedan that, in those rare moments when you're not driving it with timing equipment attached or on a dynamometer, is more pure fun.

Also, just as an aside, horsepower = torque * rpm / 5252, not 5500.

NightHawk CL9

i didn't read all the pages, but seeing the se-r vs tsx review i was .......i UPGRADED from a b15 spec v, 2003..... there are a few similarities, stock for stock the spec did seam to be faster, but not my much, maybe .2-.3 sec faster in the 0-60..... handeling, well i would say spec, but my ass hurt after 30 min of driving in chicago's pothole heaven streets..... while the tsx even with the eibach prokit, comptech RSB 17" rotas and summer tires, never felt harsh, just sporty, while the spec seemed harsh ride.

now the 2.5 from the sentra did have low end torque, but gave up high rpm power, i would short shift it, there was no power after 5500 and remember 6250 was redline/fuel cutoff, and redline at 6250 meant you never felt like it had a chance to let loose as you would need to shift right away.... some members on here got 15.3-15.4 1/4 mile time on a BONE STOCK, michelin tires, while i got 15.1 with the before mentioned mods and hondata and injen cai. so c&d reviews are helpful, driving the car you see differences they could not transfer on paper as its in reality, i never once regreted the switch from the spec to the tsx, cause it was in a class far superior then the spec, and that was the b15, which btw the motor sucked, couldn't handel lot more power then stock, when turbos were in prototype phase 2 seperate companies (the only 2 that tried) blew motors, one company blew 2 motors..... the rods were too thin. and my tsx raced a 04 spec with i/rh/r/mm and i took him by 1/2 a car..... with hondta and injen cai, and better tires....

sleeper

i give c&d a big for this one.

mkaresh

Thanks. I really wanted to like the Accord. After all, I've been asking why they don't offer a 6-speed in the V6 sedan for years. (For reasons beyond my comprehension, manufacturers still only grudgingly off sport sedans.) But sometimes you get what you ask for but it's not what you thought it would be. And then you just look silly.

As I believe is mentioned in the review, I drove the new Civic right after driving the '06 sedan, and had considerably more fun. I'm a sucker for quick, precise steering and an agile chassis. And the Accord just doesn't have them.

waTSX

Perhaps you'll be able to convince some individuals who frequent this site of that fact. A few people around here will argue until they are blue in the face that the Accord does have those qualities, and that the TSX and Accord are really the same car in different sheet metal.

HondaGuy347

So they printed my letter, it was the first one in the Letters section this month. Problem was, they took out the bolded line, and then responded that the features and amentities category compensated! I mentioned that already, guys! Oh well. I'm famous now.

supraken

iTrader: (1)

Is it just me? Or is .80g for the skidpad kinda low? I thought it was more like mid to high 0.8xg or something?

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I have seen skidpad numbers that have varied from 0.78 to 0.88 depending on the test and the magazine. Dunno who is right though.

Power1Pete

0.80g is considered high thanks to the OEM Michelin tires.

TeeSecks

0-60 times are sooo over used. I can guarantee you that if they had 5 drivers run 5 different 0-60 test, you'd probably get times ranging from 7.0-8.2. Shifting, take-off, etc., will always be the most important factor in the best acceleration times. That is what drag racing is all about.

Me tired of "underpowered" comments. I am so very thrilled with the way my TSX drives. The handling and navigating traffic with a bit of a smaller car is much more important than 0-60 time. The acceleration exceeds probably 80% of the autos on the market. It might not be the tops in the sports car market, but geez, if Honda wanted it to be, it would be.

Who is able to get to 60 mph in 7 seconds in their normal driving anyway? Everytime I floor my car, I imagine the gas gauge falling like an old 5.0 mustang. I feel guilty driving like a maniac all the time.

On C&D's article, what's up with the rating of the TSX acceleration at 12 out of 20. That looks like Corolla or Civic ratings. The rest of the pack is in the 16-20 range and they are just a blink of an eye faster. With the 12, I would have assumed the TSX time was 8.5-9.5 seconds, not 7.2.

HondaGuy347

C/D does the accelerating rating by making the best time a 20/20, and then just mathematically rating the rest, percentage wise. Really nothing they can do about where a car falls on that scale, it's entirely objective.