DaveWhyman

I think you'll get slightly different answers when gas hits $4.00/gal for premium

Motohip

Are you talking about Canadian dollars?

psteng19

A beater '96 Sentra.
Bare bones, no luxuries other than power windows/locks, AC and cruise
But the thing gets amazing gas mileage and is rock solid reliable.

Ideally, I'd keep both since the Sentra isn't costing me anything but insurance.

slats

Before buying my Accord 5-speed I test drove a TSX 6-speed and to be honest, I didn't notice hardly any difference in the power.

As you can see by my avitar, I ended up buying the Accord because it takes regular gas, gets better mpg (30-32 average on my high speed commute through the mountains! ) and feels just about as quick.

If the TSX had more power and a higher redline (thinking 240 and 8000) I would have wanted it instead. Either way, they are both great cars.

Slats

AcuraEnvisioned

I'd definitely go for more power over better gas mileage. In addition to an increase in horsepower it would have to be coupled with a huge increase in torque. That would make it have better performance, and I could totallly live with that! As others stated, if you want a more efficient car go with something like a civic.

STL

Wow, you're averaging 5 MPG better than the rated highway MPG on that Sentra. Comparing EPA rated highway milage of both cars the difference is only 15 MPG -- I guess that's the cost of a larger, refined car with almost twice the horsepower.

psteng19

Yup, I drive 80-90% highway.

Guess you gotta pay to play.

Any reason why the 6 speed manual gets worse mileage than the 5 speed auto?
You would think lighter weight and a higher top gear would mean better gas mileage.

sauceman

At 200hp, the TSX is one of, if not the best car for gas mileage.

vidgamer

Well, Honda/Acuras tend to have higher performance engines that still can get decent fuel economy (for the power). Look at other designs and they make easy choices... 3.6 L or something like that. Meanwhile, you have to rev these little engines to get the power out of them -- not that I mind doing that.

But yeah, I kinda leaned towards the TSX, thinking that gas probably would only keep going up (and I didn't even expect it to go up THIS much so quickly!). I could use a tad more power tho (always!).

cconrad

Because it's not a higher top gear. If I understand correctly, 5th gear in the AT is taller than 6th in the MT. Which is just fine for me, since I use the car mostly in the city and get to use 6th more often that way. Even at highway speeds it still doesn't rev all that high, and this way, if I punch the accelerator with it in 6th, it still moves.

As for the question, I voted to keep it the same as it is. If I wanted more power, I'd have chosen the TL (which I seriously considered at first). If I wanted more efficiency, I'd have gone with the Accord or Civic, or even the hybrid version of either of those.

I live downtown and walk to work, so we don't really put that many kms/miles on the car anyway. So I watch the price of gas climb and just smile as I walk to the office, knowing that no matter how much is climbs, it really won't affect my budget that much.

TSX 'R' US

true...but I don't see the point of decreasing the power of the TSX with it's handling capabilities. Whereas more power would compliment the handling.

STL

That's the way I understand it too, but IMO it's stupid that Honda/Acura did this. It's not like this is a track car like the S2000. There is no good reason why the MT needs to be geared lower than the AT -- especially when the MT has one more gear than the AT! I'm hoping it is something they quietly change in the 2006 models.

Motohip

I'm sure they did it so you could cruise on the freeway with enough power for hills and passing without downshifting. In the auto it will either unlock the TC or downshift on its own, which is no strain on the driver. So that's my guess as to why the 6spd is geared higher that the auto.

Have you guys ever driven a Civic SI or GSR? It turns like 3k RPM at 60 mph if I remember correctly.

mg7726

i had the 00 Civic SI, that needed a 6th gear so badly. at 80mph, it was over 3k rpm.

Viscum48

It seems that only a minority on this forum would voluntarily compromise on HP to increase fuel economy. But the recurring comments such as "if you cannot afford premium/worse mileage - buy a civic" totally miss the point. What each of us pays at the pump is only a small fraction of the total cost of car usage. Regardless of how rich individual TSX owners might be, the truth is that collectively we simply cannot afford. Perhaps certain mother would not be at Camp Casey, had the Americans been less addicted to gasoline.

European Accord 2.2 i-CTDI Diesel demonstrates that the compromise does not have to be very painful. Much higher mileage, more torque at not that much reduced power (plus 30% less CO2 emissions than 2.4 l gas engine).

STL

Think that's bad, my S2000 turns 4k rpm at 75 mph -- and that's in 6th gear!

STL

That mother is being exploited by a bunch left wing nuts who think 9/11 was totally justified. Don't take me wrong -- she should be allowed to grieve in whatever way she pleases, but the fact the far left has choosen to use her for their cause is NOT helping her. BTW, when I saw some footage from that event I saw quite a lot of SUVs parked along the road. If you want to start talking compromises you must start with SUVs -- not a rather fuel effecient sedans like the TSX.

vidgamer

The TSX is already fuel efficient compared to many (most?) similar cars.

Look at how many of us might be willing to trade a bit of fuel efficiency for more power?

Now, I wouldn't say that people shouldn't buy SUVs, if they're willing to pay the price for them. That's an interesting political point you made, although, I'm sure most of those SUVs were driven by purely independent-minded reporters, not mideast war protesters.

STL

I didn't say that either, I just pointed out that if Viscum48 was going to start complaining about lack of fuel efficieny then he's starting at the wrong "place".

Are you talking about Viscum48's point or my reply?

Keep on telling yourself that.

drewba

I guess this proves it, I'm old. I voted that I would reduce power to get better MPG and regular gas.

Of course, I think that if Honda could get 5 MPG better out of this engine, it would be configured that way in the Accord right now. Right now, the Accord is only 2-3 MPG better.

drewba

I agree with you. Since crude oil is a finite resource, every gallon that we burn is gone forever. As a society, the oil that we consume with SUVs and full size pickups used for personal transportation is disgusting to me. Meanwhile, Congress continues to bow to the automaker's wishes and leave the CAFE standards for passenger cars at the same level at which they've been since 1986. The standards for light trucks (under 6,000 lbs) have been frozen since 1996, although they are slated to go up by a whopping 1.5MPG between now and 2007.

Belzebutt

We should do a group buy on the turbonator.


And I would pick the option that's not available in this poll: more fuel efficiency AND more power

05_TSX_GP

NightShredder

That is funny. I thought that I was the only guy who bought a TSX and still walks to work. I must say that I have the same smile as I walk down the street.

dontcare4urshyt

not worth it.. drive it like you stole it. the .4 MPG is peanuts. Ill PayPal you the 3 bucks so you can have some more fun.

Viscum48

Exactly!

Viscum48

That mother IS a left wing nut, along with many millions of Americans (myself included) who have concerns regarding cheating Americans into an illegitimate and immoral war that has killed many thousand people and is actually endangering American interests, not serving them (but does serve well big corporations).


Although we cannot afford not to explore any possible way to reduce the usage of petroleum products, I agree with you on the SUV issue.

We all should ask our legislators why SUV owners are literally getting a free ride by not paying more (proportionately to the dimensions and weight of their vehicles) in user fee taxes, such as registration (plate) fees. I learned that at least in Texas my Integra registration fee is essentially equal to the registration fee of, say, a hummer or a large pickup.

STL

Well that is your opinion, and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. That being said anyone who preaches that the acts commited against the US on 9/11 were justified is indeed a radical who is out of touch with reality. I don't believe that mother has ever stated that, but several of her supporters -- or should I say handlers -- have.

Well at least we agree on this! Both past and present republicans and democrats alike have and are doing our country a great injustice by not raising the CAFE standards. In addition to looking at dimensions and weight (when it comes to taxes), I believe fuel efficiency should also be considered.

vidgamer

In saying that SUVs were often a bit too wasteful, I just feel like it should be said that people should be able to buy what they want without others telling them -- er, forcing them -- what to do. Not saying that you suggested that, that's just a statement that I feel belongs in the discussion. I hope this sufficiently clarifies things!

Probably yours. What did you say again?

I would have thought that the sarcasm was obvious. Ah, well.

Sounds like one solution is to use less oil, and increase the time before it runs out. At which time it will still run out.

I'd rather build more nuclear power plants and eventually switch to electric cars, but since that'd be a lot more expensive than oil, we're going to have to wait until oil goes up some more. At some point, there will be a strong economic incentive to go ahead and switch. Until then, we're stuck with the conservation solution, but the more I think about this, the more I think it just doesn't matter if we go ahead and "run out". Then we'll be forced to change. And we already have nuclear technology, so it's not really like we'll run out of energy.

I do like to conserve, though, just on general principal. I guess I'm just saying that blaming SUV owners is like spitting in the wind. Saving a bit of oil doesn't help much, when you consider the long view. 100 years from now, people will be using alternatives, regardless of what we do or don't do.

(As a disclaimer, maybe I should mention that we've had a couple of small SUV-like cars, but they get better gas milage than typical large SUVs, even if not great milage. Still, we purposely avoid overly large vehicles....)


BTW, in FL, larger cars/vehicles pay slightly more for registration.