seriously...if you can't tell your headlights are on...ummm its called look at the switch!!...

 

That was a good writeup, Jim. Most of your concerns are valid. Some are nitpicky sure, but we've all got a few of those. I didn't think it was a negative review at all. It says a lot about the overall quality of the car that most of your complaints are relatively minor.

Some of you seem to be unneccessarily harsh toward Jim's suggestions for improvements. It's like you have so much blind hate for GM, you can't possibly imagine that they might actually have some good ideas or do something better than Honda does it. It's silly.

The interior lights are a good example. GM does a good job of this, and Jim's beef is legit. In my Suburban there are interior spot lights for each passenger (and the driver). They are little adjustable swivelling "eyeball" lights with a narrow focus beam. It's no problem for one of the passengers to have one of those lights on without causing a distraction for the driver. "Pull over" is a reasonable suggestion if the driver needs to read something, but not for a passenger in the car. It's a poor alternative to the superior lighting systems many GM vehicles have had for over a decade.

"If it's GM, it has to suck" is simply an immature grade-school mentality. A mature car buyer should be capable of recognizing a good idea when they see it, regardless of what company it comes from.

 

I dont have an acura (yet), but one thing i did notice on a pontiac, that i did not notice on the acura is a mute switch for the audio on the steering wheel.

 

 

Ok, either way there is still an indicator on the dash.

 

comparing a Pontiac to an Acura is like comparing a Kia to a BMW. it just doesn't work.

 

:whocares:

 

I respect Jim H's opinions.

 

I was just hit last night at 5 MPH and the rear "bumper" is fine.

 

Everything you said is very true, and I understand that some people here just bash anything GM does without having any actual experience or knowledge of their products. Maybe I should have informed everyone that my first three cars were Pontiacs... a 1988 Firebird, a 1995 Grand Am (4 banger), and a 1999 Grand Am (6 cyl). Maybe that will somehow give my statements a little more credibility. I didn't own the '99 Grand Am two years before the interior started falling apart. The material on the doors that "tucked in" where the windows were just started coming out. The air conditioning knob simply broke off. I probably had my brakes done 7 times...each time Pontiac told me that they completely fixed them, yet 3 months later they would be squealing and vibrating again. When I say that Pontiacs are not in the same league as an Acura or a Honda (I owned a 2001 Prelude before my TSX), I speak from personal experience. It's wonderful that "mature buyers" can look at every single option on every single car to make the right decision. But I gaurantee that nobody here bought the TSX or a Pontiac because of the interior lights. We bought this car because it's a tremendous value, it's so much fun to drive, it doesn't fall apart, it's beautiful. etc. etc. So spare me the little ideas that you have about how Acura could improve the car. If those little things are so important to you, you are not the kind of person who needs an Acura. Appreciate it for what it is...don't nit pick about what it isn't.

 

Gotta be careful with a blanket statement like that - you have people saying things like: I won't buy the TSX cause it doesn't have power pass seat - just about as ridiculous as buying a car for its interior lights.

 

About the interior lights...there are two lights on the center ceiling console by the Homelink, to turn them on all you have to do is push them. In the rear, there are two more lights above the passenger bench in the middle, with a switch to turn them on. There are also "puddle lamps" on the doors when you open them. What more lights do you need? And how much easier should it be to switch them on than pushing them? I guess it would be nice to turn on the front and rear lights at the same time, but also keep in mind that when you take the key out of the ignition or when you unluck and open the door to get in, they all turn on, and that's the time when I need them most, upon entering and leaving the car. I am genuinly wondering what you want, not trying to flame.


But I do have to agree with the sentiment that says if it's a "feature" in a Pontiac 6000, I'm glad Acura left it out. The difference you feel between the Acura and the Pontiac is large now, but wait until about 75-100k miles, when the Acura still feels pretty tight and new. After about 20k miles, every GM (or domestic) car I've driven feels like a clapped out pile of shit. I don't think I will ever buy an American car for this reason.

 

Frankly thought that Holloman's review, and CGTSX2004's responses were one of the most detailed descriptions of the various idiosyncratic issues of car design. Holloman's obviously a detail guy, and focuses on that........ and his basis for comparison is his prior experience with Pontiacs, where he has apparently sustained the minor miracle of having ones that did not deteriorate in front of his very eyes. If I were running through this site to determine what actually owning a TSX might be like, I woud have found the point/counterpoint discussion to be entirely useful.

 

I'll respectfully disagree. Good car companies don't become great ones by skimping on the details and ignoring their customers. In general, Honda/Acura is among the best in paying attention to the details. I think that makes the little shortcomings seem that much more egregious, because they are so out of place on vehicles that are exemplary in their overall execution. Like a supermodel with crooked teeth, it makes you wonder "how did that get missed?".

 

Hmmm... I could swear that I smell the faint aroma of sour grapes here. I'm not arguing that Pontiac makes great cars and I didn't even consider any when shopping for the TSX. Actually, I didn't consider any "domestic" (hard to know what that means any more) brands, such is my own bias against them. I simply take exception to the idea that the Big Three are incapable of producing good ideas and that everything they do is de facto inferior to the way that <Honda/Toyota/BMW/etc> does it.

 

Guys, you need to remember that all these extra "features" that Jim was nit-picking on cost money. Do you really think that we know more then what Honda designers/planners know?? Adding lights to a steering wheel costs money, putting better bulbs in for the high beams cost money, an auto open moonroof costs money. I bet if you looked at the new RL, a lot of the nit-pics are probably included because its a high-end luxury car that costs more money. The TSX is missing these things because thats the price at which they wanted to sell the car.

I think GM can do these things because they skimp in other areas. Cheaper intieror and whatnot. So, maybe people who like those cars like those extra features like Jim did. I for one am glad that Acura dosent skimp in certian areas like intieror.

Bottom line, it comes down to cost. And personally, I think the TSX has just enough for its price.

 

Case in point: Honda has only recently caught up to GM in terms of smoothness for the AT. The slushbucket on the TSX is nearly perfect in day-to-day driving, butt 4-speed AT in my last two Accords was not nearly as refined.

 

The AT on my 95 was just terrible... but very durabe though.

 

I like the AT on the TSX though. It is very, very smooth and always seems to be in the right gear. And, the sportshift feature is extremely useful, although I still wish I had gone for the manual.

 

Couldnt of put it any better myself

 

For all the GM-bashing on this thread, they are the absolute $hit when it comes to ATs. Can't touch em. Until fairly recently, most higher-end Euros used GM-derived and licensed ATs.

 

 

Whoa biker, staying up late to whore?

 

bingo!!! i think the tsx has MORE than enough for its price....

 

best things from GM are their ATs and their 3800 series engine

 

o) Have a hidden switch, and a replaceable shift-gate cover,
that would allow the owner to set the direction of the
Sport Shifter. Not only does it seems to be backwards to
me, but there is a very disgusting consequence to having
the current direction. About 98 percent of my driving is
in Sport Shift mode. The few times I do use fully
automatic mode, I will often forget that I am in
automatic and reach down and push the shifter forward.
Well, guess what happens. The transmission is placed
into neutral at exactly the point that the car needs to
be accelerating, the engine RPM's approach the redline,
and the driver behind me wonders what in the hell am I
doing. I hate it when that happens. It is also a safety
issue. Having the shifter move in the opposite direction
would completely eliminate this situation because
attempting to move the sifter towards the rear when in
automatic mode would do no harm -- the shifter simply
will not move.

Check TL Community. I have seen someone's post on how to reverse the direction of SS. By the description, it seemed quite simple to do. That post was there about 2-3 weeks ago, I think.

 

Thanks, mlionel.

Please see my post of 11-27-04 (Post #9) at: https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17827

 

Couldn't sleep.

 

i totally agree

 

Holy thread revival!