my TSX, the good bad and ugly...
06-05-2006, 01:25 PM
#41
Still Lovin my 06
Originally Posted by Zoopa
My rule of thumb: never by a 4-cylinder with an automatic if you care about performance. Sorry, but I can't sympathize with you on this one. The biggest excuse for people not getting manuals is something like "you don't wan'na be stuck in traffic all day with a manual tranny." My response is, when you can get a car with one of the best manual transmissions in the industry, what's the big deal.
Soemhow buyers of the TSX overlook the fact that this car has won lots of praise by the press for, (10-Best List for three years in a row, etc..), the manual transmission equipped version, not for the automatic version.
You would be correct to say that the automatic transmission may be weakest part of the car because it robs the engine of most of its power.
Soemhow buyers of the TSX overlook the fact that this car has won lots of praise by the press for, (10-Best List for three years in a row, etc..), the manual transmission equipped version, not for the automatic version.
You would be correct to say that the automatic transmission may be weakest part of the car because it robs the engine of most of its power.
with this car, i hardly think the MT makes a significant power difference over the AT. i don't recall the numbers on the two, but i'd be surprised if they were very different. this car isn't about power.
that being said, the MT is certainly more fun to drive and gives a faster "feeling"
06-05-2006, 01:27 PM
#42
Still Lovin my 06
Originally Posted by savage
you have only had the car for 10 days, it took me a month or so to be very smooth with the DBW... it used to be very jerky in traffic or moving up hill at slow speed, but i got used to it.
i agree the car could use more power, but you also seem to be using the car in automatic mode, switch over to SS and learn the power curve of the car... if you shift properly from 1-2, or 2-3 under acceleration you shouldnt drop out of i-vtec (below 5500) if you are shifting just under redline... there is a drop in power but i dont think it is anywhere near a Corolla...
also i dont know about other people but i felt the engine really started to open up around 5000 or 10,000 miles...
in my opinion the car tightens up around 80+, the steering feels tight and the suspension feels nice and solid... of course it's not at the level of a BMW, but it does feel tight...
i was surprise to read that you have to slow down to talk on the phone due to the road noise, i just turn down the radio... I have never had an issue talkin on the phone with the radio off at 80mph and i have the OEM tires...
anyways, great review but i just wanted to drop in my
welcome to the board....
i agree the car could use more power, but you also seem to be using the car in automatic mode, switch over to SS and learn the power curve of the car... if you shift properly from 1-2, or 2-3 under acceleration you shouldnt drop out of i-vtec (below 5500) if you are shifting just under redline... there is a drop in power but i dont think it is anywhere near a Corolla...
also i dont know about other people but i felt the engine really started to open up around 5000 or 10,000 miles...
in my opinion the car tightens up around 80+, the steering feels tight and the suspension feels nice and solid... of course it's not at the level of a BMW, but it does feel tight...
i was surprise to read that you have to slow down to talk on the phone due to the road noise, i just turn down the radio... I have never had an issue talkin on the phone with the radio off at 80mph and i have the OEM tires...
anyways, great review but i just wanted to drop in my
welcome to the board....
06-05-2006, 01:29 PM
#43
Still Lovin my 06
Originally Posted by trekuk
Some additional comments on the engine and its "weakness"..
I think we all agree the MT will out-perform the AT and allow for actively putting the engine in its limited powerband. This is a long Honda legacy on sporty cars, from the NSX to the Civic SI, and beloved by many for the shear fun factor of it.
However, when comparing the TSX to other options in the $25-30k range, the TSX stands out as a little handicapped engine-wise for those of us who prefer (or ended up with) the AT for whatever reason. No, it's not as bad as a Toyota Corolla (I was laying it on a little thick there), and it's perfectly adequate for any normal driving, city or not. Most other comparable cars have either a turbo or larger displacement, making the powerband a lot wider and more easily available. The availability isn't all a matter of lazyness, it also has to do with real performance in a 5speed auto, for example if you're on a 2-lane road trying to pass a car going 60-70mph, that's when you need all your horses, and the high-rev engine and the auto will not always give it to you. Unlike for example all the 1.8 to 2.0 liter turbo engines from Audi/VW, or the 2.5 liter 184hp engine from BMW, just to name a few. With a MT you can probably rev the hell out of these engines as well for the little extra performance, but you don't have to, there's enough oomph in the lower revs. Not the case with the TSX.
That being said, the world is changing in terms of power. 10 years ago, a 200hp car was considered a pretty fast car. Today the bar is higher, with a lot of normal cars packing 240-280 hp as the new sporty baseline. The TSX auto really falls short here. It's not so much underpowered as many competitors are perhaps overpowered, but it's still a comparison in which the TSX doesn't shine. After all, it's such an excellent car in so many ways, of course we'll nitpick and object loudly on its few weaknesses. Overall, I'm very happy with the car, but I must admit to having a two-wheeled Honda that is the primary vehicle for motorized fun in my world...
I just broke the $50 barrier on a tank of gas yesterday, and suddenly the little NA 4-banger ragained its charm..
(if only it would drink regular 87.... )
I think we all agree the MT will out-perform the AT and allow for actively putting the engine in its limited powerband. This is a long Honda legacy on sporty cars, from the NSX to the Civic SI, and beloved by many for the shear fun factor of it.
However, when comparing the TSX to other options in the $25-30k range, the TSX stands out as a little handicapped engine-wise for those of us who prefer (or ended up with) the AT for whatever reason. No, it's not as bad as a Toyota Corolla (I was laying it on a little thick there), and it's perfectly adequate for any normal driving, city or not. Most other comparable cars have either a turbo or larger displacement, making the powerband a lot wider and more easily available. The availability isn't all a matter of lazyness, it also has to do with real performance in a 5speed auto, for example if you're on a 2-lane road trying to pass a car going 60-70mph, that's when you need all your horses, and the high-rev engine and the auto will not always give it to you. Unlike for example all the 1.8 to 2.0 liter turbo engines from Audi/VW, or the 2.5 liter 184hp engine from BMW, just to name a few. With a MT you can probably rev the hell out of these engines as well for the little extra performance, but you don't have to, there's enough oomph in the lower revs. Not the case with the TSX.
That being said, the world is changing in terms of power. 10 years ago, a 200hp car was considered a pretty fast car. Today the bar is higher, with a lot of normal cars packing 240-280 hp as the new sporty baseline. The TSX auto really falls short here. It's not so much underpowered as many competitors are perhaps overpowered, but it's still a comparison in which the TSX doesn't shine. After all, it's such an excellent car in so many ways, of course we'll nitpick and object loudly on its few weaknesses. Overall, I'm very happy with the car, but I must admit to having a two-wheeled Honda that is the primary vehicle for motorized fun in my world...
I just broke the $50 barrier on a tank of gas yesterday, and suddenly the little NA 4-banger ragained its charm..
(if only it would drink regular 87.... ) well said.
06-05-2006, 01:34 PM
#44
Originally Posted by trekuk
... I think we all agree the MT will out-perform the AT and allow for actively putting the engine in its limited powerband. This is a long Honda legacy on sporty cars, from the NSX to the Civic SI, and beloved by many for the shear fun factor of it.
...With a MT you can probably rev the hell out of these engines as well for the little extra performance, but you don't have to, there's enough oomph in the lower revs. Not the case with the TSX.
That being said, the world is changing in terms of power. 10 years ago, a 200hp car was considered a pretty fast car. Today the bar is higher, with a lot of normal cars packing 240-280 hp as the new sporty baseline. The TSX auto really falls short here. It's not so much underpowered as many competitors are perhaps overpowered...)
...With a MT you can probably rev the hell out of these engines as well for the little extra performance, but you don't have to, there's enough oomph in the lower revs. Not the case with the TSX.
That being said, the world is changing in terms of power. 10 years ago, a 200hp car was considered a pretty fast car. Today the bar is higher, with a lot of normal cars packing 240-280 hp as the new sporty baseline. The TSX auto really falls short here. It's not so much underpowered as many competitors are perhaps overpowered...)
I agree that the world is changing in terms of power for cars, and not in a good way. So much hp is dangerous and unnecessary. Not to mention that until all such cars get gas mileage as good or better than the TSX, they're just plain wasteful.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cycdaniel
1G TSX Performance Parts & Modifications
8
12-17-2019 10:58 AM
DiamondJoeQuimby
Car Parts for Sale
1
09-10-2015 11:40 AM
