I'm really interested in cars, and looking forward to purchasing my first new one sometime in the near future. I've been lurking the forums of the tsx and several of its fellow entry-lux car brethren (is300, saab 93, a4, 325) for some time to try to gain some insight that will sway me towards one car or another, as I tend to like all of these cars. As such, I enjoy the friendly bantering that goes on when a competitor is brought up...

Which brings me to my point. I have seen the term "value" used when describing the tsx perhaps more than any other term. It seems that most people have decided that the tsx, the newest comer amongst the more established vehicles, manages to deliver an equivalent experience, but at a greater "value". The best I can tell is that value here is defined as number of features that are included for the given price (let's assume that the main characterstics of these cars, namely engine performance and dynamic handling, are for all practical purposes, equivalent). With its all inclusive pricing scheme, Acura has definitely included a rather lengthy list of standard features (standard options?). However, in my unbiased opinion (unbiased in the sense that I own none of these cars, would love to own any one of them, and yet see various shortcomings in all of them), I have had a somewhat hard time reconciling this notion of the tsx being the clear "value" leader, and I would like it if someone can show me why this seems to be the accepted notion.
Here are my ideas about this-
The only dollar amount that really matters is the amount I can pay to take home the car today. In other words, I don't care if one car has a lower msrp than another, if the otd price is the same. Given this, I'll assume I can get the tsx for 26k (~1k off). Also, I will use the carsdirect price for the other vehicles, as this is a price I know I can get the cars for, and is usually pretty competetive with the dealers. Given this, I can get a fully loaded a4 1.8T (premium, sports, bose, xenons) for $28,982, a fully loaded 9-3 linear (driver's, touring, and sport packages, heated seats, and sunroof) for $28,529, and a fully loaded is300 for $27,959. So, it looks like the a4 is ~3k more than the tsx, the 9-3 is 2.5k more, and the is300 is 2k more (I've already dropped the 325 out of the picture as it is significantly more expensive than any of these). Oh yeah, and I only drive sticks.
However, as I see it, none of these vehicles are truly equivalently equipped, and these differences must be taken into account to see the value of each car. Here are the main things I see:
-the is300 comes with fogs, power passenger seat, compass in mirror, auto-levelling hids, and performance tires, trip computer (?).
-the a4 comes with performance tires, auto-level hids, fogs, one-touch sunroof conrols, trip computer (?)
-the 93 comes with bi-xenon hids, compass, refridgerated glove compartment (!), trip computer & compass

These are the main features that I can think of that these cars have that the tsx doesn't (I think for the most part all of these cars, when fully loaded, have all of the features the tsx does). My main point in bringing up all of this is to show that while the tsx does cost less than the other 3 cars, they all have things that the tsx doesn't, and to have a fair comarison, the value of these things must be considered. The exact value of each of these is very debatable, as they are all included in packages, but I would argue that if they were offered as separate add-on features on a car, they would be worth somewhere close to $1500. In addition, the a4 comes with 4 years included maintenance, and the 93 with 3 years included. I remember someone a while ago put up a post that estimated the value of the 3 year maintenance at $1000, so I'll consider that as reasonable, and I'll consider the 4 years to be worth $1333. If you take this into account, and subtract these from the price of each of the other vehicles, the prices all end up within $500 of each other, which is about 2% of the cost of the vehicles, which I consider negligible (in fact, your negotiating skills probably account for more of a difference in the otd price). Also, I take the whole resale value argument with a grain of salt, because no one has any clue what kind of resale any of these cars will have (a high residual really doesn't mean anything - it's common knowlege that car manufacturers play around with residuals to get the monthly payments that they want).
I guess my point in this now obscenely long post is that all things considered, all of these cars seem to offer approximately the same value when I compare and contrast them. The main differences I see between the cars are their looks (very subjective, and I happen to like the looks of all 3), the size, and the very personal idea of which "feels" the best. However, when it comes to value, it seems to me that they're either all great values, or all poor ones, but from reading all of the posts on this site, I seem to be in the minority on this issue, and I would love to hear other people's opinions. Thanks!

 

Good thinking and good analysis, wish.

Except for one thing.

I don't think that's what we mostly mean about the "value" thing. I know that a lot of times on this board, people put it that way, and almost every review says that, and maybe for some people that's really it.

But for most of us, it's something much more basic, certainly for me it was:

IT'S JUST AN UNUSUALLY GOOD CAR FOR WHAT IT COSTS.

I've even said it's the best car even if you go up a few price points higher, and IMO that's true too.

Even for the people who say that all those features is what they mean, I don't think they really mean it just that way, deep down. If the quality of the car weren't unusually good for the price, I don't think that other stuff would count that much to them.

It's the sporty feel, and the handling, and the surprising power, and the great suspension, and the comfort and support of the seats, and that intangible feeling of solidity, and the wonderful balance of all these qualities.

It's the quality of the car. How much car you get for the money. Not how much "stuff" you get. Although that doesn't hurt.

 

Yeah, I guess that in my mind, it seems like all of these cars give you about the same amount for the money. The main difference then, money wise, is that the tsx just seems to be at a slightly lower price point than the other 3, when fully loaded. But, as I was saying above, I think that for the extra money on the other 3, you get stuff that is basically worth that extra amount, making them on an equal value level, in my mind. I'm not disagreeing with your statement that the tsx is a lot of car for the money - I think it is. It just makes it that much harder to decide on a car when they all seem pretty damn good to me...

 

From what i have read alone in magazines which quoted that the tsx is a great value, it is very simple. It is not the fastest, it does not have the most presitage, might not be the best looking, or (put whatever you wish), however it is on the top of most the categories. It may not outhandle a bmw but it out handles most in its class. It is one of the cheapest if not the cheapest in its class as well. One of the best reliability if or if not it is beneath the lexus is300. Roadholding is just below the BMW (car and driver July 03 issue). The acceleration and quarter mile times between the cars are almost minimal. Better fuel economy then the bmw and the lexus and others. Might not hold much presitage but hell i bet it'll get there.

Like i previously said the TSX is not the best in everything or much in anything. And as i have read in other threads i agree the people who buy BMWs go for that specific Sportiness and Presitage to begin with and does not care about any other category. The TSX however combines all the category for DAMN good price. In that degree the TSX is the best value and cannot be beaten in that sense. :P

(P.S. i myself will only have a week to purchase a car at the end of this month, i am not willing to wait for my color choice. So if they cannot find a choice im looking for, i will be going for a Benz C230 or shell out more for a G35 (both great cars too imo) - however i live in LA and a dealer will most likely have it or can trade it in.)

 

"a high residual value doesn't mean anything..."??

Dunno what kind of funny stuff you've been smoking, wish, but for the many people who lease new cars every few years, residual value is EVERYTHING. Two cars with the same purchase price can easily be $50 to $100 per month apart in lease payments if one has a higher residual value than the other. So if you lease and turn the car back at the end, the higher residual valued car can cost thousands less.

And a higher resale value - not the same thing as residual value, of course, although the lessor hopes they are closely related - is important to anyone who is eventually going to sell the car. I sometimes sell a car at the end of the lease because I can get more than the residual value. So sometimes I benefit from both a high residual value and a high resale value on the same car.

Seems like there's some meaning to be found in both, don't you think?

 

Value is not just the feature count per dollar, but rather the "goodness" of the entire package per dollar.

Even if we just hold performance and capabilities of these cars to be the same, there are tons of other things affecting value beyond installed features and the complexity of those features. Hyundai, more than any other manufacturer, offers the best feature to dollar ratio, yet very few people with tastes for a quality automobile consider them to be good values.

I have no idea what features you selected for the cars to get those prices on carsdirect.com, but that's rather a minor point. Here is why the other sare poor values for me: I test drove the Audi A4 1.8T very recently among with a slew of other cars (weenkend entertainment for father-in-law from China). To sum it up, the car was a disappointment. It's small, switchgears are mushy, shifter is rubbery, and the engine retains the same level of roughness as a GTI 1.8T. And I can't for the life of me figure out why people think Audi/VW interriors look nice. Sure the sunroof dial is great, but get some new radio buttons, PLEASE! I'd also like a console design that doesn't remind me of Frankenstein's forehead.

SAABs are not even a consideration for me due to: fewer dealers around, questionable reliability, quirky ergonomics, and torque-steer that rivals Nissan's V6 sedans. And though this is purely subjective, I've never seen a SAAB that I liked the styling of.

I also test drove an IS300 and think it is the only compelling alternative to the TSX since it's prices have come down so far due to the end of model close-out deals. But sit inside an IS300, and then a TSX. I know the IS300 is a Lexus, but even my wife admited that the TSX felt far more luxurious and felt more expensive. (My wife thinks Lexus is 10 times the automaker that Acura is because "they are all over the world").

What it comes down to is the feel after a long test drive. BMW - whew, in five years. SAAB - they are still in business? Audi - where's the fire? Lexus - best Toyota ever! TSX - Here's my deposit.

 

Funny after the last couple of years, even the Acura faithful have said this about Acura cars. I think with the TSX and new TL Acura may be trying to "reinvent" themselves and put a little more passion into their cars. Whether or not they are successful remains to be seen.

 

Hey Wish, as a fellow Chicagoan let me share some thoughts with you. The TSX is a great value because you get much more than what you pay for. It's the little unspoken things that validate this purchase. It's the way the car turns into a corner, the operation of the sunroof, the feel of the switchgear. This is an incredible car that I've only driven for 135 miles, but I can already tell this is going to be a beautiful experience.

Why choose the TSX over the competition? The cars you mentioned are no slouches, and if they cost $3000 more or so, that's not a major difference. I personally didn't consider any of those three cars for the following reasons: reliability, resale value, brand familiarity, I don't like German cars, snow drivability, I needed a manual with a navigation system, and price. And while $3000 is not a major amount, it is certainly something.

Good luck with your purchase, and no matter what it is you buy, I'd hope to see you at the TSX meet. That is unless you buy a Saab, Lexus, BMW, MB, Volvo, Infiniti, Audi...

 

Actually, I would still disagree with this, although I will qualify my statement. In my opinion, a high residual doesn't mean much. It definitely means something, and probably has some correlation to the resale value, but it definitely doesn't mean everything. The lease amount depends on many factors, one of which is the residual value. But, the dealers play all sorts of number games, and in the end, they'll get the monthly price they want. For instance, take the saab. It has a lower residual than the tsx, but to compensate for that, saab gives you a ridiculously low money factor, and the monthly amounts come out to be more or less the same. Why? Because Saab knows the amount of money people will pay to lease a car in its class, and it will adjust the numbers accordingly. If you're leasing, and you plan on turning the car in at the end, do you really care if it was a high residual and low money factor or vice versa that got you to your monthly payments? The only time you really care about the difference is if you plan to buy out the car at the end of the lease, and in that case, you would obviously rather have a low residual so you can purchase the car cheaply (and, if the residual truly was lower than the actual value of the car, you can sell it for an immediate profit. But, contrary to what you said, this is a situation where a low residual is beneficial, not a high one). Further, a residual on a first model year car is nothing but an educated guess. If the car ends up having any mechanical/electrical problems, this will drop the resale value. If they have trouble moving the cars off the lots, they will probably sell at invoice and/or have incentives, which will lower resale value. But at the time the residual is set on the car, they know none of this - it's pure speculation. Now, if that logic seemed like it came after a session alone with the funny stuff, please let me know. Thanks!

 

Thanks Jason. I definitely see the value in the tsx, and it will be at the top of my list. I'm moving to California (Bay area) in about a week to start my first job, which is why I haven't bought a car yet. I'd love for the decision to become easier by clearly seeing one of these cars above the other...that's one of the reasons I posted here, to get the tsx people to convince me that the tsx is obviously the way to go. To the credit of the posters here, all have made really good points, and the tsx is probably slightly ahead at this point. To tell you the truth, what it may come down to for me is whichever car has the color/options combo that I want in stock when I go in - the registration fees in California become tripled on Oct. 1 (will be about $650 for one year's worht of registration for the tsx!!!), and I want to slide in before that kicks in.

 

Value is also total cost of ownership during the entire time you will own your vehicle. Yes some of the other makes have free maintenance while the car is under warranty. But are you only going to own this car for 3/4 years? Unless you are Provench that's usually not the case. Alot of people say well I have free maintenance so Im saving money...yes you are but not by much...because the cost of servicing this car during the first 3/4 years are usually fairly low in the first place. It's what happens after the 3/4 year period is over. And thats where Honda and Toyota products win out over their counter parts in most cases.

I would NEVER buy an Audi...and I work for them. It's a lease or nothing. With Audi if you wanted to buy an extended service contract you can't. You can buy a service contract but it's not carried by VW/Audi...it's a third party contract.

Value is in the eye of the buyer. If you feel you are getting your monies worth then its good value.

 

Most of the comparison you are making here are 2004 vs 2003, or have you already taken this into account?

 

Yes, this is a very good point that I more or less ignored in my evaluation, but it should definitely be taken into account. I guess the main difference would come in resale value - although the actual resale value is unknown, in a comparative sense, the 2004 my of the tsx has a nice advantage over the 2003 my of the other cars. Thanks!

 

Yes, the price of 2003 cars right now can only compare to that of a 2004 car at this time next year, when 2005 cars are just around the corner.

 

Back to the topic of 'what is value?'. I think justinjsw & larch have touched on what I believe is the best description of automobile value.

Like a lot of things in the automotive world, a car's value is a completely subjective thing. Maybe the only true way to value a car is to prioritize needs, means, and desires. I doubt that someone who needs to tote 4 kids to a soccer match could see the value of any luxury sport sedan.

Most of us here have said to ourselves something like...I need a good handling reliable car, I can't afford 35k U.S., and I would like things like power leather seats, auto dimming mirrors, and 17in. wheels.

Any cars that met that criteria were probably looked at even furthur. And those cars have been valued by measuring the priority of each need (good handling is more important than high reliabilty) the means (I'd rather spend 28k but if I find the right car I'll pay 32k) and the desire (I have to have a power driver's seat but I don't care about a chilled glove box) and then we all added in the biggest intangable of all, how the car feels. In the end we all formed our own opinion of each automobile's value.

 

You know what's funny. Luxury and value do not belong in the same sentence.

 

Great point, RZ -- I think everybody else missed that.

But actually, when you have a "2004" model like the TSX, I'm not sure it gets "credit" for being quite as "new" as that down the road. I mean, it will be a known fact that the 2004 came out unusually early, and besides, the MILEAGE will be whatever it will be. At least for resale (maybe for residual too, I just don't know), I'm pretty sure mileage is a more important factor than what model year it is. I know for sure it worked this way when I went to sell or trade in my "2003" TL-S which I got in FEBRUARY (!) 2002.

So maybe after all the "2004 vs. 2003" factor doesn't matter that much. I think probably it doesn't.

 

I think mileage is definitely the most important, but all things being equal, if you purchased a 2003 and a 2004 at the same time, drove them both the same amount, and tried to sell them some time down the road in the same condition, I believe the 2004 would have slightly more value (although, given that it is obvious public knowlege that the tsx is a 2004 but it came out a good 5 months or so before other 2004's, I'm guessing it's possible that in the future, the 2004 tsx is actually treated by dealers as more of a 2003.5 model, and not a true 2004).

 

It also matters because of the cars price at this point. Since the 03 models are being phased out by the 04, that is the reason why some models are being much cheaper then they're supposed to be. Audis, Saabs, BMWs. Take that into consideration as well. Only reason why other models come close to the TSX price is because of changes in their designs or a new year model. I don't know about you guys but i would hate to buy a car like that, knowing it lost already a year worth of value or a new design in right there.

 

Value goes beyond otd price, feature specs, resale value, and routine maintenance. How about reputation?

While it's true that we do not know in the future which cars will have the best or poorest resale values and reputation, we can look at history for clues.

In the case of the TSX, I would look no where else but the Honda Accord for circumstantial evidence.

The solid basis and foundation of the TSX is the Honda Accord. (The TSX is based on the Japanese/European-market Accords, and it has many refinements over that basic Accord that you can read ad nauseam on countless messages on this forum.) But body is an Accord's. The chassis is the Accord's. The K24 engine is the Accord's (with many enhancements, certainly!), and so on. Despite some people's intangible marketing perceptions about Acuras vs. Hondas, we are fortunate that the Accord has historically had excellent reputation, reliability, and resale value. That's a good solid basis, IMHO. For me, the Accord is what lends credence and credibility to the TSX, a totally new model for the US and Canadian markets.

Aside from maintenance, look at the repair histories of the cars. Which brands hold up the best, both near term and long term? How many times have Audi, BMW, and Saab scored as high as Toyota and Honda-made cars for long-term reliability in Consumer Reports, for example? Over the years, there have been scores of half and full "black dots" I've seen for those other "vaunted" brands.

Yes, a car that offers value is what attracts me to the TSX. The IS300 would possibly have interested me, but it's a 6-cylinder, gets a bit poorer gas mileage, and costs more, given its standard feature set. Those are all negatives to me. It has nice features, like auto balancing HID lights--a nice thing, but I can live without them. I really do not want to pay more for a car than what I can have and get in a TSX. In fact, the TSX is a bit overkill for my requirements. For me, 200 hp isn't a reason to buy the car, for example. I would be just as content with the very adequate 160 hp K24 engine that's in the Accord. And I would be satisfied with a 5 speed MT rather than a 6. But by a tremendous margin, I like the TSX's body style over the US-style Accord. And I like the TSX's semi-luxury feature set.

The features that the other mentioned cars have that the TSX does not have are not material to me, even if I could quantify them and determine the cost differential. I don't care, if it doesn't matter.