Almost every post I read regarding the TSX mention reliability as though it were dogma. Yet there are numerous posts (personal experience included) that seem to contradict these assertions.

Is reliability simply a measure of how often (or not) the car will break down in the middle of the road?

 

Given a margin of tolerance and maintanence, it is the subjective measurement of critical part mechanical failure. You have to define what is a critical part and what failure means to you.

I have not had one single critical part failure. I've had some inconveniences, but the car is 100% reliable b/c I know every morning when I get up to go to work, the car will start and get me there. The rest of what I experience, beit the good and/or disappointing, is external to the fact that my TSX, #6400 off the line, gets me to point B from A with no critical failures.

 

How long the car will last before the main systems start to deteriorate.

Longer=more reliable

 

My opinion:

Reliability: How few/many times the car has to be taken to the shop for defects/failure. This does not mean the car is not drivable, it just means that the car and components is not operating as designed (engine blows up, tranny fails, short circuit drains the battery, electrical system prevents car from being started, suspension problems that cause drifting and/or rapid tire wear, power windows don't operate, etc.)

Fit/Finish/Quality: material quality, wind noise, rattles, material wear, strange noises (that don't seem to be an indication of any problem), windows that don't seal perfect, etc.

I define these this way so that one can be independent of the other...ie a car can have window leaks, rattles like a snake, wind noise like a hurricane, and material wear like a GM, but still provide "reliable" transportation.

 

I agree. My TSX's have inconvienenced me several times but have always been 100% reliable.

 

Reliability = Honda

With a manual tranny and an inline 4, I don't think you can go wrong. Maybe some clutch wear, but a lot of that's related to driving habits.

I drove a Civic to 230k before I was ready to move on. Still ran fine. My Dad drove an Accord to 175k with no major problems either. I'm hoping to drive the TSX until at least 150k, probably longer.

 

I view "reliability" as the car does not have mechanical problems as long as the recommended maintenance schedule has been performed. Can't blame the car for failing if certain maintenance has not been done properly.

I view noise, rattle and easy to chip paint and such as "quality". If the car doesn't have any or very little of the quality issues, or mechanical issues, then the car has good quality and reliable.

 

I call my mom's Honda reliable...no oil change or maintenance for a whole year, 50 mile commute every day...heck, the hood still has a bump from when one of the spark plugs came lose and shot upwards. She was able to drive home on 3 cylinders

All of our Honda's have never required any major maintenance. The only time they're not available is when they get broken into by evil, God-hating thieves who would rather have someone else work for their aftermarket parts (my car was broken into twice in 6 months).

Reliable
Main Entry: 1re·li·able
Pronunciation: ri-'lI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : suitable or fit to be relied on : DEPENDABLE
2 : giving the same result on successive trials

Reliability means you can depend on your car. You will hardly find a honda on the side of the road due to mechanical problems (other than getting a flat tire). My brother's ford seems to deteriorate just sitting on the driveway lol. He spends more time borrowing one of my cars.

Rattles, squeaks, etc. aren't a sign of unreliability.

 

means dependable to me, does it start and drive you where you need to go w/o problem. jtso is right on about quality as well. the only problem I've seen w/ realiability is the HVAC issue, but that is nothing compared to other cars like my wife's MINI where users report electrical problems, engine cutouts and cars settings themselves on fire!!

 

Reliability to me is being able to drive the car where ever I want, when ever I want and for how ever long I want. Every other "issue" I've had are things that can wait until it convenient for me to bring it to the dealer, in which case they have nothing to do with reliability.

 

So let me get this straight:

If your car has poor initial 90-day quality ratings (according to JD Powers), you spent a lot of money on a "real" piece of crap.

A car with poor realiability ratings (open circle or lower, according to consumer reports) will likely leave you stranded on the side of the road, if not start at all.

And, the TSX is much more reliable than being a high-quality automobile, correct?

 

I dont agree. I think the TSX is high-quality in terms of design and materials for what you pay for it. If I had bought a $50K or $75K car, I would expect the quality to be top notch...

 

My 04 TSX is very reliable. No major issues and I expect to drive this car for a while. There are some minor inconviences but nothing major about it.

 

#721 off the line

-used to rattle, but it went away by itself.
-Seat rail replaced under warranty.
-radio lights went out, replaced under warranty.

Besides that, no problems. Besides the radio problem, my other two annoyances are completely acceptable in my book. So yes, under anybody's definition, I believe that my TSX = reliable

 

This is a good assessment. Reliability doesn't mean the car is perfect. No man-made machine is. It does mean confidence that the car will get you where you're going, no matter how far it is.

With the TSX, if I decide to drive to San Diego or Boston, I'm 100% confident that I won't have any catastrophic failures along the way. To me, that's reliability. So far, it's held true.

 

I think TinkyWinky is trying to say something not so flattering about the TSX here. His issues with the car are well-documented. I think the TSX is both reliable and of high quality.

 

Yep. Its almost pointless to make a constructive statement about reliability, quality, or enjoyment of the TSX when a thread is started by TinkyWinky. Deaf cannot hear and the blind cannot see.

 

You guys have figured me out; time to change my username.

The point of this thread is that there is a lot of embellishment in many statemtents made here about the TSX. I'm sure the smarter readers will read each post for what it is, but a sense of impartiality is lost and I think that's what makes a forum, such as this, useful for many people (i.e., potential TSX owners).

I consider having to take your car to the dealer for non-maintenance issues a reliability issue, since you lose time and have to stress over what else will malfunction. I went from VW to Honda to avoid going through this same crap, but nothing has really changed. Well, the service and attentiveness of Acura dealerships is far superior, not to mention the loaners.

Reliability was one of THE main factors that convinced me to get a TSX and ... well you guys know the rest.

 

If a seat slider makes you stress out... that's your problem. The only things that stress me out is safety, like leaving me stranded somewhere or having a critical eletrical/mechnical problem while driving. I can't think of any issues w/ the TSX that fall into those categories.

 

The funny thing about reliability is the more expensive the vehicle, the more demanding the owners are.

Hyundai is doing well in the customer satisfaction reliability surveys, but BMW always does poorly. Does that mean that you're going to have more problems with a BMW than you are with a Hyundai? I don't think so.

If a BMW driver hears a rattle, they're going to take points off the survey for it. Now a Hyundai driver is probably not going to hear any rattles because of all the road noise, but if they did, they probably wouldn't even care.

My boss at the CNC company when I worked there had toys galore. He went through millions of $$$ in autos while I was working for him. Porsches, Ferraris, S-Class and CLS Benzs, BMWs, you name it, even though all of them had some issues, I certainly wouldn't call any of them "unreliable".

The perfect car doesn't exist, and even if it did, it certainly wouldn't be as cheap as the TSX. I've had minor inconveniences with my TSX, but I have no hesitations to call it reliable.

 

Although I understand where TinkyWinky is getting at with his point and also agree to a certain extent. BUT, Tinky's perception of reliability is exactly that, perception. It's probably as right as anyone of ours, and also what makes an average for surveys like JD Power. On the other side of the spectrum, you have fanboyish optimism.

That being said, not one manufacturer is exempt from the occasionnal lemon. Just that some seem to make a habit of it. I don't hear too often that a Honda is being lemonned, which to me is reassuring. In fact, I don't remember anyone here on this board having ever lemoned their TSX.

 

Reliability is:
1. Having to do nothing more than the regularily scheduled maintenance;
2. Having to replace wear and tear components at long intervals.
3. Consistent performance, efficiency, noise, feel. Consistent being the key word.

We still have the 94 Accord sedan. The steering feels exactly the same as when we bought it used with 80,000kms. The fuel economy is the same. The power is the same, the idle noise/vibrations are the same. Front brakes were finally changed at 115,000kms. Three problems - radiator, ignitor/coil, and 2 Mufflers. I realize these things go, but based on my tight definition I consider those problems. That's it.

I only have 14,000kms on the TSX, I cant completely speak to the reliability of the car. But, I have a good feeling about the car!

 

^^Nice avatar