How does that work?

 

If I wanted more power and less handling, I would've just bought the Accord EX V6 with navigation.

Seems pretty clear to me that he wanted the explanation for himself.

 

Well ... the problem is you get the bonus of the 4-door Accord being beat by the ugly stick :busted: and being a bit bigger or a think at least a few of us might have done just that.

 

Dammit!
This is why the net can be so informal.
My apologies if this was the case.
AKay

 

The Euro Accord has the same 2.4 engine as the TSX but in Euro trim it makes 190 HP. 0-100kph (62mph) is 7.9s for the 6 sp and 9.0s for the auto. I assume the type R everyone is talking about is the old Accord - no type R for the new one (yet) The above numbers are for the Type-S as its called (vs the base 2.0L 155HP engine).
It's not just with Honda, but all Euro cars will be getting somewhat draconian (by past Euro standards) emission requirements in the next few years (imagine all of US having CA standards). That will affect what kind of engines/HP will be available for this car. As an alternative, Honda is offering the i-CDI diesel. While it has only 140HP, it has a mountain of torque (50% more at 1/2 the RPM) and gets almost twice the milage of the Type-S Accord and emissions are less.
I don't think any Euro Accord ever had or will have a 6 cyl engine - that's reserved for the Legend as its still called outside of NA.

 

There is a Euro R which is our TSX but equipped with the 2.0 220HP K series engine from the JDM ITR.

 

Isn't the RL the Legend? Both it and the TL have V6s. Aren't both available outside of NA?

 

What I want is, lighter wheels + better tires. That way I get a faster car AND better handling.

 

Only if there was a slight decrease in handling and a major increase in power. Overall I'm very pleased with the power and handling of the tsx.

 

If the TSX had been designed to give up a little handling, but got some extra power for it, there would only be posts like "would you give up power for better handling" or "is the <insert desired HP here> worth the extra $2500?" or "would you give up a little power to get better fuel economy"?

I think the bottom line is that, no matter what products we're offered by the automotive industry, it could always be "better".

Example: Name your "perfect" car. (It must already exist!) I bet one or more others could point out deficiencies in it, making it not quite so "perfect" anymore.

With the TSX, we've got a car that is an excellent blend of reliability, fuel economy, value, safety, comfort, luxury, power, and handling. I can't imagine a vehicle that would be more pleasing to own and drive than the TSX.

 

The RL and Legend are the same.

The 2nd generation TL was available in Japan as the Inspire, as was the 1st generation.

The 3rd generation TL (2004) is available (so far) in the US and Canada.

Japan still has the Honda Inspire, but it is now a US Accord with a 250 hp 3.0 V6 with Cylinder deactivation.

To my knowledge, Europe can only get two V6 Honda cars, the NSX and the Legend.

 

Overall I'm very satisfied with the TSX as is. Not to say I won't be pissed if they bring out a 2005 model with 15-20% more hp and torque.

But were I after straightline power instead of an overall well-balanced package, I'd have gone with the Accord V6

 

Porsche 911 Turbo. Deficient?

 

Too expensive. Insufficient passenger capacity. Gotcha.

But the real question is: are the steering wheel controls lit?

 

BMW m3 or m5. The only thing wrong with these cars is the price

 

And even then, they have a reputation of being among the best power/price ratio sports/GT cars.

 

For some reason i've always wanted an m5 much more than an m3. I'd also be happy with an e55

 

Same here. What the heck happened to the 4-door M3?

 

What? It has a backseat......technically. :P

 

Could I possibly agree more?

 

Oh crap, the new Inspire is 250 HP with cylinder deactivation? Last I checked, it had the TSX interior too. That's what I want! As the Spanish would say, S O C K S.