View Poll Results: Would ya?
Yes, I'd trade power for fuel efficiency
18
14.88%
No, keep it the way it is
54
44.63%
I'd wouldn't mind more power and less fuel efficiency
49
40.50%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll
Would you sacrifice some power if the TSX took regular and got a few extra MPG?
#43
Originally Posted by STL
We the fact you're getting 20mpg less than you were before is costing you $600-700 a year, but the fact the car take premium is only costing you about an extra $100 a year. All that being said, I bet your old car didn't have 200 HP, leather, as much interior space, 17" wheels, as much storage space, HIDs, ...
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.
#44
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
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
#45
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.
#46
Originally Posted by psteng19
A beater '96 Sentra.
#47
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#49
Originally Posted by sauceman
At 200hp, the TSX is one of, if not the best car for gas mileage.
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!).
#50
Originally Posted by psteng19
... 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.
You would think lighter weight and a higher top gear would mean better gas mileage.
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.
#51
Originally Posted by narci
could also say if you want more power, you could get something else.
#52
Originally Posted by 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.
#53
Originally Posted by 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.
Have you guys ever driven a Civic SI or GSR? It turns like 3k RPM at 60 mph if I remember correctly.
#54
Originally Posted by Motohip
Have you guys ever driven a Civic SI or GSR? It turns like 3k RPM at 60 mph if I remember correctly.
#55
high mileage
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).
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).
#57
Originally Posted by 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).
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).
#58
Originally Posted by STL
....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.
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.
#59
Originally Posted by vidgamer
Now, I wouldn't say that people shouldn't buy SUVs, if they're willing to pay the price for them.
Originally Posted by vidgamer
That's an interesting political point you made,
Originally Posted by vidgamer
although, I'm sure most of those SUVs were driven by purely independent-minded reporters, not mideast war protesters.
#60
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.
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.
#61
Originally Posted by 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).
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).
#62
Originally Posted by iamhomin
It wouldn't make sense for both the purchaser/distributer to make the TSX less powerful and more fuel efficient.
We might as well just add a turbonator.
We might as well just add a turbonator.
And I would pick the option that's not available in this poll: more fuel efficiency AND more power
#64
Originally Posted by cconrad
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.
#65
Originally Posted by mg7726
i just checked my car. in past couple of weeks, i've actually gained mpg by backing off the vtec points, stopped using SS, and driving like granny...
old: 26.5 mpg @ 8,440 miles
new: 26.9 mpg @ 9,501 miles
old: 26.5 mpg @ 8,440 miles
new: 26.9 mpg @ 9,501 miles
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.
#67
Originally Posted by STL
That mother is being exploited by a bunch left wing nuts who think 9/11 was totally justified.
Originally Posted by STL
If you want to start talking compromises you must start with SUVs -- not a rather fuel effecient sedans like the TSX.
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.
#68
Originally Posted by 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).
Originally Posted by Viscum48
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.
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.
#69
Originally Posted by 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.
Since crude oil is a finite resource, every gallon that we burn is gone forever.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Yumcha
Automotive News
1
09-17-2015 09:01 PM
nuldabz
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
3
09-03-2015 05:49 PM