It's kind of ironic when you consider that Acura was meant to staunch the flow of Honda buyers moving to other brands as they moved up. Now buyers are moving up from Acura if they want a small/midsize sport sedan. I agree that the V6 will help and was definitely necessary. I also think too many enthusiasts overstate the RWD thing; a lot of people actually find FWD easier to control and like the advantages of the more efficient packaging. But in the past few years AWD has really proliferated in the entry level segment and I think it's starting to eat away at the TSX's market.

Like LuvMyTSX I'm an AT buyer and will be waiting to see what the MMC brings in one or two years' time. I waited for the '06 MMC and it paid off with some of the extra goodies from the TL (MID, Bluetooth) and better rims (IMHO, lots of others would disagree). If that pattern plays out again then I hope to see the HDD hi-res navi system and some sportier rims in the MMC. Who knows, maybe they'll decide to offer CMBS + ACC + LKAS here in the MMC. I don't understand why they don't offer the system on all the products to capitalize on their lead in crash safety.

And I might even get over the lack of Milano Red...

 

Could it be that the execs already recognize that the TL is ugly as sin and they know it's sales are going to nose dive all on it's own? I think the injury to TL sales would have been more of a concern if it was selling well. In the end, they're better off selling any car to that segment than no car at all.

 

i just dont know why the 6spd and the LSD weren't possible.

Couldn't they have just thrown the power train from the last gen TL-S in it?

Whats all that power and no LSD (or shawd for that matter) and no 6spd gonna do for anyone?

 

 

It more of a marketing gimmick than anything. The V6 badge on the trunk makes the sales people's lives a little easier. They said the suspension was retuned as if that was a concession to more discriminating customers but I suspect that it was required in order to account for the additional weight. If they cared about the passionate customers they would call it a type-s and go the whole 9 yards with polished pedals and red gauges. Acura has been offering that trim for a long time, all the way back to the GS-R so I don't think they will dissapoint in the end.

 

I really don't get it. The RL sold poorly - so they made the TL just like an RL. What's the logic there? If they wanted to move upscale they could have done so without altering the size and character of the cars. All they needed to do was improve the bland styling and give them some muscle. They got it partialy right and TSX sales reflect that. I submit that there is a new hole in the lineup where the old TSX used to be, while the TL and RL play cards in their lonely corner.

It's kind of funny, I saw a thread in the 4G TL forum, they're hard pressed to say they've seen another TL on the road other than their own.

 

I think it's funny that when the RL was dying they brought the TL up to take it's place and now that the TL is struggling they're bringing the TSX up to take it's place. Oh the irony lol.

Anyway, I don't think the TSX or TL should have increased in size as much as they did. The TSX was already the perfect size before they made it 3G TL sized. All they needed to do was increase the width to make room for a V6. The TL was already nearly the size of the 5 series and ES and CTS. It didn't need to increase in size 6 inches to be nearly the size of the 7 series and LS. The RL was the only Acura that needed to grow. The RL is about 6 inches too small to be a flagship.

 

Because...

**insert excuses that only seem to be applicable to Honda/Acura dealers, manufacturing and its customers here**

 

"because it would canibalize TL sales"

 

I like the way the TSX looks... I would only paint the grille. The TL needs to be taken out to a field and put out of its misery but the TSX looks like a winner to me. Add a LSD and a 6 M/T and I'd be interested.

At least Acura listened to people and put in a V6, even if it does mess up the line-up now. The pricing will be really interesting. I agree they should have called the V6 a Type-S and done red gauges or something.

Now if we could have it RWD we'd have the perfect car!

 

Maybe I missed it, but where did it say that it was designed for reg. fuel? I would imagine w/ that HP figure, they were able to achieve those figures from using 91+.

RE: the TL, I despised it when it first came out but it has grown on me an awful lot and I think the interior is great. The back end is still my least favorite part but I definitely don't despise the whole car like I once did.

 

i wonder if they do make a v6 6speed model if they can compete with the price/offering of the honda accord v6 6speed.

 

i believe they are simply the euro accord 18 inch rims and are the same design as Acura's optional 18 inch ebony black or chrome rims.

 

Obviously because they don't want to.

 

I really like it wish that had a manual but i could live with an auto. It should be fast. Im hoping the suspension and wheels will be available on the 4cyl.

 

Yet another Acura offering with no 6 speed manual available. I'll pass.
For about two decades now enthusiasts have begged for a six speed in Acura/Hondas cars. Every now and then they offer and then they take it back. i dont ever want to hear the word "sport" when it comes to their sedans. Sport and AT dont belong together..they never will.
And no I dont care if that chunk of rolling shit known as the TL offers a six speed next year.

 

Not sure that's true. The 3G TL was offered with a MT for its entire life, same with the 1G TSX. CL had a MT its last year, the RSX always had one as did the NSX. The current generation is when your statement would be true but the TL will have one soon.

 

To play the devils advocate. One Acura product planner says, "let's try this car with a manual transmission this time." Second planner says, "last time we did this we only sold 3000 over 5 years..." First planner says. "yeah, but this time it will be different...."

On the serious side. The TSX is roughly 40,000 per year. The mix of V6 to 4 cylinder hasn't been announced, but they did say it would be limited. Let's say the mix is 60% 4 cylinder this means that there will be about 18,000 V6s built. The normal adoption rate is 10% so this means 1800 manuals per year. Is it worth it? Who knows? It's obviously not worth it to Acura right now.

 

Its depressing, as time goes on the manual transmission is dieing. Its not just Acura its across the board. I am guessing in the next 5 to 10 years there will be hardly any manuals offered except for a few cars, and the DSG or duel clutch setups will take over. Its sad to see these go because they give some much more interaction with the car. Lets face it 90% of Americans don't want to drive a manual, too much work.

 

I can live with DSG on account of it's high degree of effeciency compared to manuals and automatics. MT will still be cheaper to produce than DSG for a while yet so the only place you will find them are in cheaper purpose sports cars like you Civic Sis and Mazda Miatas.

 

I love the stick shift but as more people sit in traffic and the cost between the two is eliminated, the autos get better economy, and the market shrinks what is the incentive to build them? You can always get a BMW I suppose.

When the CL was offered with a MT more people than Acura thought ordered them, and that was when the car was going to be killed so there is hope that people will buy them but, in the end, seems the bean counters always win.

It is ironic that the ads always show a MT in them, if its available.

 

awd

 

I remember a few years ago I was shopping w/ friend who was interested in the RX-8, I think, & the manual transmission cost more than the automatic. It was explained to us that so few manuals would be sold that putting a premium on it would help make it worth Mazda's time to build.

Also, they figured only an enthusiast would really be interested in a manual so if they really wanted it, they would be willing to pay extra for it.

I wonder if Acura, or other makers, will go this route. I am not sure how successful Mazda was @ exploiting this demographic but it is an option to help keep manuals around.

 

It also doesn't help that most younger people these days don't know how to drive manual cars because they didn't grow up with them. Autos have been the mainstay for a while now, so less people are learning how to drive on manuals. There just aren't enough people who change their minds later in life and want to learn how to drive manual. Enthusiasts are a very small part of the population, obviously.

 

I learned to drive on an AT and have only been exposed to cars with ATs. I have been meaning to learn how to drive a MT, but haven't had the time or opportunity. I think most people in my age bracket are in a similar situation; the proliferation of ATs has made it more difficult to learn on a MT and has reduced the need to do so. Also, most of my family members cannot drive a MT either, so owning one would create some complications.

 

i kinda wished i had a manual for a weekend car because the traffic here in florida is ridiculous to have it as a daily driver. Im hoping Acura copies the structure of their vehicles like Lexus or Infiniti or BMW. offering different engine options on their vehicles.

 

Yup. Increasingly, young drivers are never being exposed to driving a car with a stick. It would seem the odds of picking up driving a stick later in life are really low, because you need some way to learn it, and that's usually in the form of learning from a family member on a family car. My dad's 89 Legend V6LS MT (325,000+ miles & still running fine on original engine/tranny btw) and my interest in cars is the only reason I know how to drive a manual.

There's no doubt driving autos is easy, especially in commute traffic and on hills, so I can understand why a lot of people drive them. The shame is though, most people never understand the pleasure of driving a manual. On a sports oriented car, I see it as an absolute must.

Here are numbers on auto vs. manual sales in the US up to 2003. The percentages are probably even worse now. I hope manuals don't completely disappear, but they have been appearing less and less in certain car lines, including Honda/Acura.

MODEL AUTOMATIC %* OF TOTAL MANUAL % OF TOTAL TOTAL SALES
YEAR
1985 10,021,482 77.6% 2,887,171 22.4% 12,908,653
1990 10,141,794 78.7% 2,752,150 21.3% 12,893,944
1995 12,816,559 83.1% 2,602,211 16.9% 15,418,770
2000 15,995,874 90% 1,785,377 10.0% 17,781,251
2001 14,898,961 90.6% 1,540,618 9.4% 16,439,579
2003 16,752,979 92.6% 1,335,531 7.3% 18,088,510
*Includes manual/automatic hybrids
Source: Ward's Communications

 

You know they already kind of do that..the manual TSX costs as much as an automatic TSX, yet realistically it should be cheaper to build.

 

Who's to say? In the numbers that they are produced, it might cost more? Maybe Honda's production efficiency has gotten the automatic price the same as the manual?

OR

Maybe, automatics have always been the same price as manuals, but because they were once perceived as a luxury item that people were willing to pay for, manufacturers and dealers charge more for it 'just because' the market will bear it.

 

If you define a 'true enthusiast' as a manual driver, they are even rare on this forum.

 

In Canada, Acura charges C$1,300 extra for the 5AT model.

 

I would pay more for MT.

 

As a purist, I am very fearful of the demise of the manual. Future fuel economy requirements will be the death nail as auto's can now outperform in that category as well. What is interesting is Europe is gaining in automatics at a quick pace as well, which will be another negative strike.

I bought both of my kids manual cars as it forces them to pay more attention to the road. I can't remember where I had seen the stats, but it did show that manuals had a smaller crash ratio on a per capita basis.

I am betting that the lighter TSX with the V-6 had so much unintended torque steer when power shifting the manual, that they had to not offer it. You can bet the engine is electronically throttling back on the automatic shifts with the v-6 to control the torque launch.

 

But strangely, not for the 04 model year.

 

My first car was an AT but after college I ended up with a "free" car that was a MT so I learned how to drive it... bought my CL b/c it was a MT... paid some guy $75 to teach my girlfriend how to drive a MT (he had an Integra) and she learned later in life... but this is the exception. Until my knee goes out I'll only drive a MT. That's the one knock I have on Benz... only 2 cars in the U.S. line-up with 3 pedals.

When I lived in Europe everybody there said only old people drove ATs. Maybe that is changing now. Kind of sad. Hell I was in a junkyard not long ago and saw a 1G Chrysler minivan with a MT!

 

TL-S had to deal with the same problems and managed.

Bottom line, if they cared enough to create a new MT solely for the SH-AWD TL (I doubt even 5% will opt for the MT in that boat of a car) there should be no reason not to recycle an MT for the V6 TSX. Its a shame. But whats done is done. Won't stop me from going out and at least test driving the V6.

 

I totally agree! BUT in order for it to 'recycle' it has to cycle first! The MT TL isn't out yet and so (IMO) there is no way they'll to anything with the TSX to upstage that.

 

I was referring to the old TL-S' MT. Although I presume the new MT is also non SH-AWD compatible.

Just going by what Jeff at TOV is saying, doesn't look like we'll ever see an MT. If there was some hint at getting one next year or getting one in a Type-S, I don't think any of us could complain about not seeing it in the '10. But like he said, enthusiasts who want the MT are typically also the early adopters.

Any proof to that in your experience Colin? Did MT sales go down over the lifespan of the first gen?

 

I would naturaly assume MT is coming next year but it's the fact that the IS350 doesn't come in manual that has me scared. Acura might be realizing some same reality as Lexus.

They wouldn't hold back a manual on account of torque steer. They clearly believe torque steer isn't a problem.

I hate automatic for the same reason it's less safe; it disengages the driver and leaves them in a relaxed sedate stupor. I love manual because no matter how tired I might be it wakes me up.

Also this might be obvious but maybe some people are unaware; the awesome thing about manual is you can make the engine produce as much horsepower as you want the exact moment you want it, so suppose there is some slow asshole doddling along, you can drop it in third and speed around him. With an automatic you have to bury you foot in the floor and wait a while for the car to figure out what's going on, not to mention the power suckage that occurs due to the AT itself. I submit that MT isn't just a preference, it's literaly more fun.

 

CVTs are going to be the norm in about 10 years. They can be amazingly efficient and the engineers have finally figured how to make the crazy belts they use stand up for a reasonable amount of time. In the past this has been the main stumbling block.

For the average family commuter car I suspect the arrangement that will be most common in 10 to 15 years will be a small gas motor powering the rear wheels through a CVT and one or two electric motors turning the front wheels with no transmission. The front wheels will only be powered at low speed and heavy acceleration (and possibly as part of the stability control system) while the rear wheels will handle cruising at higher speeds nearly exclusively. It doesn't take a ton of HP to keep a car moving once it's at speed so a 100 to 150 HP motor would be plenty for all but the largest vehicles while the electric front wheels can supply 300+ ft lbs of instantly available torque the get the thing moving.

It's pretty different from what we see now but I'll bet in 20 years that cars built on such a setup will be substantially faster than today's cars while using much less gas.