amadeus303

iTrader: (2)

I bought my TSX because it provided the best balance of everything I wanted... sportiness, some great creature comforts, and reliability. I would've purchased it regardless of what badge it was wearing. Alluding to what Kali wrote, I don't personally believe Acura is viewed in the same light as any of the other lux brands, particularly its Japanese counterparts Lexus and Infiniti. I've never been more satisfied overall with a vehicle than my TSX, and although there are many cars out there that could trump it in performance, or luxury, or prestige, I'm quite certain that I paid MUCH less than they did. Prestige can only go so far... the quality of engineering and workmanship is what will keep me coming back.

bradykp

AMEN AMADEUS.

Beoshingus

Well, let me put a sharper point on that question:

If the TSX had Chevy badges on it, would you have bought it?

bradykp

that's tougher because chevy quality is so horrible.....

just kidding. i'm not a chevy hater. why? how about this:

1993 Pontiac Bonneville - 240,000 miles on it when we sold it, no problems. The car is still being driven by the guy we sold it to, and the outside looks nearly new, just now starting to chip and rust. The inside leather seats are a bit worn, but the car is 14 years old now.

1998 Chevy Malibu - 190,000 miles and still running. Problems with ABS recently, but still runs fine.

1997 Chevy Blazer (i hate these cars, but my dad has it for the 4WD in the northeast PA boonies) - 140,000 miles on it. 4WD needed a minor repair for $200 a couple months ago.

Way back when i was little, we had a Station wagon. i think it was the Chevy but i cant remember the model....Celebrity? anyways, that car lasted well over 150,000, which is when we sold it.

I'm not saying i'd buy a chevy over a honda/acura. But GM quality aint as bad as people say it is. Unless my family treats the cars that well or we had that much luck.

But you have a point, it'd be a tougher decision with the Chevy brand on it. But if the car was out for 3 years, and it's got the same specs, it'd have the same quality ratings too. So....

WHY NOT?

ilitig8

The reason I have not bought the TSX to replace my travel car is I can't kill the 96 Corsica I drive now, 226K and still burns no oil in 5K drain intervals and never had a major repair (alternator, radiator, tires, brakes and a water pump in 10 years).

Now on the thread, I would still purchase the TSX as a Honda, it makes no difference the marque of the car when it comes to my travel car and even if the MSRP was the same the transaction cost would be lower if it had a Honda badge. I will however pay a lower premium for an Acura over a Honda than either a Lexus or Infiniti over their lower lines because IMHO they distance themselves more from their counterparts.

Beoshingus

But you see my point. The people who say that brands and badges don't matter are dirty stinkin' liars. (To say that they SHOULDN'T matter would be different.) Everyone bases their prejudices on a perception that is attached to a particular brand. If Ford brought out a new model tomorrow that was objectively awesome in every way, it still wouldn't have the same level of respect as if they had branded it as a Jaguar or a Volvo. I hear people mocking Buick on this forum all the time. They make good cars, but people have prejudices about the brand based on past experience or groupthink mentality or whatever.

As for the Acura brand, yes Acura is perceived as a luxury brand every bit as much as Lexus and Infiniti are. Lexus/Toyota and Infiniti/Nissan even sell the same cars rebranded in the same markets (ES/Camry, LX/LandCruiser, GX/Highlander, QX/PathfinderArmada, FX/Murano, I/Maxima, J/Altima, etc.) - something that Acura/Honda has not done. Anything that gets branded as Acura is sold as such exclusively in North America. So why do people on here consider Lexus and Infiniti luxury brands, but not Acura?

LoveMyTL-S

I lived in Japan for 6 years and owned a loaded Honda Accord. That plate is Japanese........

bradykp

I see the poing, but don't call people who say brands and badges don't matter liars. Because they don't to some people. You are correct, the masses ARE asses, but not everyone. Ever since Ford bought jaguar and volvo, people's opinions are declining. is volvo any worse off because ford owns them? maybe managerially, but they are still built in the same plants by the same people, just headed by a different corporation, which in the long run might effect them. i'm sorry, but ford deserves the reputation it has. My father works for a utility company in Pennsylvania, and all they buy is fords for their company cars. they get the escorts, the F150, and larger trucks. he said they have tranny problems with a large percentage of them. my uncle had a taurus (96 maybe?) and the tranny went in less than 30,000 miles, they replaced the car for him, but come on! that should not be happening.

ford also has exceptions. the mustang is a well built car. the f150 is also a pretty nice truck despite the problems, it's been performing better than it's counterparts.


my point is, no matter what company comes out with a car, i'm waiting and not buying it right away. i might be more inclined to buy the acura tsx in 2004 because acura has a good reputation, but it's still stupid to jump on the first model or release of a product. don't go buy the new Windows OS until they release the service packs to fix everything they left out. Don't buy a new model car until they work out the kinks and you have some real quality ratings to read about.

if a ford badged car came out and looked like the tsx and got the same quality ratings, i'd consider it.

how about the new sonata? did they not rip off the design of the accord? it's not exactly the same but pretty similar. would i consider it? for the price, how could you NOT?! but yes, because it's hyndai, i might not even go to the lot. hyndai will work on that and do things to get me to the lot. i never went to an acura lot before the TSX came out. but as soon as the sleek car came out, i did my research, decided i liked it, and waited for the 2006.

i cant wait to pick it up!

helraiser

Never claimed you were stupid nor should you claim that those that may buy stuff cuz o' the name are idiots

Of course a car isn't an investment, that's why I said it was a liability Frankly cars are overpriced, waaay overpriced. People have different reasons for buying cars. You'd buy it cuz it's got everything you want and at a reasonable price, low maintenance and mainitenance cost, pimp factor, etc. I'd buy it for all that and still look at the long term resale value.

Really, if a person doesn't think of the resale value of the vehicle then they either plan on driving it into the ground or just have a lotta $$$ and it doesn't really matter to them. For me, in 5-7 years I'll be in the hunt for a new car. With that said yes, I will buy a t-shirt that got a FUBU label over one that's got a BOBO label. Is it shallow that I'm buying what looks like prestige? Some may say so in which case, why the hell are there luxury cars?

I'm payinig foor the Acura badge and lov'n it baby!

Edit: I also looked at the volvo line, didn't do a lotta research into it but it's a sexy car, Ford owned or not

gdcwatt

What we should be thinking is why didn't, say, Kia or Chrysler come out with the TSX?

I doubt all of those with a TSX would have bought one, and not just for the badge on the front; we trust Honda to create a higher-performance Accord that will be practical, last, retain its value, and be fun. Even that Honda badge mean something to us, and to others.

Most people would agree that if the TSX was badged a Honda, it would have cost less, though.

Beoshingus

And thus you prove my point. You have preconceived notions about the baggage/reputation/reliability/whatever that the Hyundai name carries. I'm not making accusations here, I'm just pointing out a fact of human nature. Like it or not, brands do matter. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

(And FYI, Jaguar sales and quality have skyrocketed under Ford's tenure at the helm.)

bradykp

i know you didnt say i was stupid, i was just pointing out that i'm not. sometimes i need to reassure myself

yes, resale value is important, but there's so many things that can happen that you can't control. you buy a car, you plan on keeping it for 3-5 years. uhoh, the company decides to redesign it the year you want to sell it. what now? you're screwed. too many things can happen, so unless i'm only planning on keeping it for 3 years, resale isn't important to me. i'd probably consider leasing if it was. am i loaded? no, but i'll make my money in other areas. i also am patient selling a car, so i usually get the max price. i just sold a 1991 nissan sentra with No Air Conditioning, No power steering, Standard transmission, been in an accident, 100,000 miles on it. hmmm.... what else. i'm sure there's other stuff about it that makes it shitty. anyways, sold it for $1,100 in scranton pa. pretty good.

93 toyota camry with 205,000 miles, selling it for $2000. shit, we sold the bonneville with 240,000 miles on it for almost $1,000.

i'm not worried about selling cars for a good value, i drive WAY too much for that to be an option. and you can always find some sucker to pay what you want if you wait.

helraiser

I look at the polls and it's definitely good to see that there's some die-hard TSX lovers here because it IS a great car and lots can be done with it plus they'd buy it whether it's a Honda or an Acura. Mad props to y'all! It's cuz o' you that the car will keep being made and we'll keep buying 'em!

bradykp

i did not prove your point. hyndai hasn't proved to me that their car is worth buying at the price yet. but i would consider it. it's not stylish enough for me. if they came out with a model i liked, i would go visit the lot. sorry if you misunderstoof my post. hyndai needs to get me to the lot with something like a stylish car, sleek design, or an INCREDIBLE sale. i have ridden in them, and i don't think they are that comfortable either. i rent lots of cars when out on business. Kia Amonte is pretty nice. i dont know if it's worth 25k or whatever it costs, but it's pretty damn nice.

so please, quote my entire post next time, not just one sentence.

helraiser

hahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahah

Aint that the truth...

Beoshingus

Actually, in the places where the TSX is actually badged as an Accord, it is more expensive. A comparably equipped Accord in Europe is about $40,000USD.

helraiser

Like the Donald said... it's all about location, location, location!

Mokos23

If this JDM Accord was also the USDM Accord I would've bought it coming from a 6th gen Accord sedan. It would've cost about only $19-20K, probably $22K with the Navi and stuff. But, if there never was a Acura TSX, I would've bought a G35 sedan or a non-navi 3rd gen TL.

Sclass88

Probably not unless it came with all the same features.

amadeus303

iTrader: (2)

Isn't that due to the imports duties/taxes that certain countries impose on these vehicles? Canada is an example, isn't it?

Beo... I can understand the point you're trying to make if the TSX is rebadged as a Kia. In the original thread, the reason why it makes no difference to some people here is because you're still getting the historically good Honda reliability and quality. In essence, you are paying for the name... but in that case, you're paying for the HONDA name... not the Acura name. If the TSX were rebadged as a Kia in your example, I would still take a look at it... and maybe I would get it too after doing research and taking a few test drives. After all, that's how I ended up with my last vehicle (Mazda6s) despite my concerns regarding the Ford Duratec engine. Through research, I was convinced that it was a vehicle that I would be happy with (Duratecs were known to go over 200k miles)... and I was coming from a 2002 Honda Accord EXV6. Would I be more hesitant in buying a Kia? Yes... but not because of the name. Rather, I'd be more hesitant because of the lack of historical evidence to suggest to me that Kia makes sporty vehicles that stand the test of time. Reliability is not relative to a name; it's relative to historical data.

Some people truly do not care about a "name" --- but there is a reason that brands like Honda and Toyota are always mentioned in various publications when referring to quality autos. For most, I agree that brand and quality are deemed synonymous with each other, whether valid or not.

I, do, however still greatly disagree with you on the fact that Acura is perceived with the same prestige as Lexus and Infiniti. Whether they ARE in the same luxury class is a different argument to me (to which I believe they are), but I may have not been clear in what I was suggesting. Yes, they are all cross-shopped... but at the end of the day, I would venture that most buyers that end up in the Acura do so because of the cost-benefit value. For others, visually driving around in a Lexus that says "Yes, I can afford this" means something. For me, it doesn't.

This thread is ironic in the sense that we are all TSX owners on a TSX forum trying to justify to each other why we bought a TSX

ianS

I vote yes, because I love to drive this car and I am not driving the badge. Actually, I wish it come with the euroR grill!

BTW, how about Lexus IS300 or Toyota Altezza RS200? MB B350 or Chysler Pacifica?
Sony Bravia LCD TV or Samsung LCD TV?

bradykp

you said what i've been trying to say....historical data....not the name. that's why i'm hesistant with hyndai and kia. thanks for putting it clearly!

ianS

Yes, if the CF4(of course need manual) was ever come to Canada 6yr ago, I dun think I am driving an E46 now.

fuckleberry

No, simply because Honda logo is just plain FUGLY and yet everyfxckingwhere
so I will miss the quality big time but I can't stand the

OTOH If there is a diner next to McD I'd pick the diner for burger and stay clear of the McD whores

Beoshingus

Historical data is inseperable from the name. When BMW brings out a new model, it automatically has the baggage and/or prestige that come with that marque. Regardless of its individual merits. It's eventual rating on a scale of 1-10 will be determined down the road, but where it initially begins on that scale is determined primarily by the brand name. That new BMW might be a piece of crap. But it's a BMW, so it will be treated as such until it is proven otherwise. If they make enough bad BMWs, the brand will eventually develop a reputation for bad cars.

My point is that people judge any new model of vehicle by all of its predecessors of the same brand name. The prejudice (for good or for bad) is based on the brand.

Honda has a good reputation. But so does Acura based on its own merits rather than its pedigree. It's all about perception. Face it - most of the American car-buying public doesn't even know that Honda and Acura are the same company until they do their research. So the Acura name brand has to be able to stand on its own. I think it does so very well.

West6MT

I so wanna comment in this thread right now,....but I have to go somewhere. I will be back to add to this very interesting discussion later.

GIBSON6594

There's a tension builder

fuckleberry

yeah we can't wait to hear your comments

bradykp

you have a point when you say that most of the public follows this, but you can't say that because of that, statistics = brand name

simply not true.

when consumer reports, car and driver, road and track, etc etc, take a car for a test drive, they don't consider, oh, it's a BMW so let's start at a rating of 10. let's publish that until we take it for a test drive.

people may do that, but shame on them. if your point is that people do it, ok. but that doesn't make it fact.

historical data gives me an impression of a car. but if the best quality brand comes out with a brand new model, i'm still waiting for reviews before i buy it. i'm doing my research before i buy it. so it doesnt matter what badge it is on, because i trust things such as JD Power, Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, etc.

If people don't do due diligence, and just assume "honda = quality" then they are gonna get burned eventually.

I can think of so many companies that produce good quality product, but then as soon as their name catches on, and they don't need quality to attract customers, you can see the quality slack out over time.

i used to shop at Abercrombie about 10 years ago. I still have some of those clothes. 5 years ago, stuff i bought only lasted about a year. so now i don't shop there anymore.

if lexus starts producing shit, they'll lose me as a customer. they won't lose everyone though, because some people will hear "lexus" and just assume.

Beoshingus

You think you're disagreeing with me, but you're not. You just said it yourself: people make decisions based on brand name. Period.

(And on a side note, if you think that the car magazines aren't biased towards their favorites, you are on crack. I once saw a review [cant' remember which magazine] of a Mercedes C class in which the entire right side of the dash and glovebox fell completely off into the floor during testing, but they still gave it high marks for quality. Their preconceived assumption that Mercedes=quality blinded them to the fact that they had a poorly-constructed piece of crap on their hands. "But we can't say it's crap; it's a Mercedes! It must not be crap after all!")

ianS

I remember when C&D test drove the first gen C-Class, their comment was "The car feel luxury and look classy but if MB can put in engine, tranny from Corrola then interior design from Civic, then it should be a way way better car."

ILoveMyHonda

This discussion is intense but I'm gonna stay out of it and just answer the question.

YES. I would still have purchased the car if it had a Honda emblem on it.

I didn't buy the presteige or the snobbiness that can come with an Acura. I bought it because of the great price and the great features that came with and the reputation that I know that comes with a Honda. And I had so many good experiences with Honda Accords. I knew this was a rebadged Accord and that influenced my purchace more.

Quite frankly I agree with some that say it perhaps Acura doesn't get the same snob appeal as Lexus, Merc or BMW. I'm thinkin it's probably because of all the Integras we have seen over the years. Because of its performance potential and younger age group appeal I sometimes think that might be the cause of it. When do you ever see a "riced out" G35 or IS...etc. Sometimes but hardly never. You see integs and now RSX's all the time. Riced out or cleanly done. I've read that Honda itself always felt that the Integra didn't fit in the Acura car lineup, and now we are hearing the same about the RSX. This is just my But, that now past phase of "riced out" integs IMHO has "tarnished" Acura's what might have been pretigious image. BUt to me its on its way back with its features and the like, its a upward climb but I think its going good.

Doesn't anyone wonder why there isn't Infiniti, Lexus, Acura overseas so much yet. Because they know Westerners are a culture that is so into commercialism and consumerism that would buy into "name brands".

bradykp

i am not agreeing with you sorry. unless we are arguing two different points.

if you are arguing that PEOPLE make decisions based on brands. then i agree.

if you are arguing that because a brand has recognition, it automatically means quality can be assumed, then i DISAGREE.

yes, most people make decisions without doing their due diligence. that's their fault. i'm not most people. so no matter WHAT badge was on a car of the TSX's quality and design, i WOULD buy it for the same price i am paying. Why? because it has proved it's value to me.

and of course you can't remember which car magazine it was, cause it was probably a shit one. Consumer Reports rates some brands great one year, and horrible the next, depending on the product. i trust them, yes.

Beoshingus

I agree with the Integra point. Good observation. I think Infiniti intially started off on the wrong foot by Infinitizing 1st Gen. Altimas and Sentras, but they are turning that around now. (As for "ricing" it out; FYI, there is a guy here in town with a brand new G35C that he repainted BRIGHT METALLIC PINK. It is SO flaming, it's not even funny.)

I disagree with the consumerism comment in this context. The reason that the Jap brands started bringing out luxury lines is because too many people would never have taken them seriously otherwise. Back in the 80s, the Jap brands had the econobox reputation. The little Japanese cars were appreciated for their economy and (somewhat) for their reliability, but they would have been laughed out of town for trying to introduce a "luxury" car in that climate. And so the names Acura, Infiniti, and Lexus came into existence so that the American public would look at them without the preconceived notion that these were just Hondas, Nissans (Datsun, lol) and Toyotas. Honestly, in 1987, would anyone have paid upwards of $40K for a DATSUN LS400? But by starting fresh, they were able to shape the reputation that they wanted. By the way, Mazda almost got into the luxury brand segment as well. They were going to introduce a new line called Millennia, but aborted the concept and used that as the model name for what was going to be the first car in that line, introducing it as a Mazda. That's why Millennia and 929 competed for the same space for a couple of years.

So the luxury brands were designed to help shed some of the American public's preconceived notions about the kind of cars that the Japanese could build. And let's be honest - Japan knew absolutely NOTHING about luxury cars before they started building them for the American market.

Beoshingus

Duh. That's what I'm saying.

Again, "duh." But "PEOPLE" are the ones making those assumptions, aren't they? And they DO make them, as you pointed out.

But they aren't making and selling cars just to you. They are selling them to "PEOPLE," and if "PEOPLE" are going to spend upwards of $50K for a car, they want it to be a luxury brand. No one is going to pay $50K for a Kia, no matter what the car is. That's how "PEOPLE" think.

It was most likely C&D or R&T. They do that kind of crap all the time. Very biased.

waTSX

I didn't buy for badge. I bought this car because it had the characteristics I was looking for in a car in a particular price range, namely sharper handling and sporting intentions, along with sedan practicality.

It was a tough decision between the TSX and an '04 EX V6, but in the end the Accord was just too soft and I had already been down that road before.

I absolutely do not regret my decision for one minute.

iamhomin

Psteng, are you sitting in one by now?

waTSX

The decision I make between two cars will NEVER, EVER come down to the damn taillights. Who cares? I only see 'em when I'm approaching the car. I care about how the car drives, and, sorry, the TSX has the USDM Accord whupped in this catagory.

The Acura badge is NOT the only thing that separates the TSX and the US Accord, it's the driving experience.

waTSX

Speak for yourself, dude. You're making an awful lot of assumptions about people you don't know.

ninjamyst

I test drove the '05 TSX and the '06 V6 Accord back to back...and honestly, the interior looks almost the same. Same nav, same layout (the Accord has a sharper center console), same steering wheel, same feel. I bet the average person can't tell which is an Acura or an Honda if all the emblems are removed. As for the drive, the V6 got lots more kick to it. I have to admit tho that the TSX handles better, but not by much. On my first TSX test drive, I felt like I been driving the car for years. With the Accord, it was a bit awkward. I am not saying the Accord is better in every sense but it's comparable to the TSX in many ways and even exceed it in some aspects. But anyways, I hope to own a TSX because it's a great car and because it's an Acura. If it's a Honda, I would have to think really really really hard....