JD23

Considering the V6 TSX is a new addition to the model lineup, I don't see why people are complaining that it is only AT. The MT I4 TSX will still be sold, so how is Acura ignoring previous customers?

09TSXTech

I love driving my 6MT CBP Tech model. Although the addition of a V6 is nice to have, IMHO, it is not going to be a big seller for Acura MT or AT.

w3fly3

A V6 MT TSX would be more similar to a 3G TL MT than to a 4G TL MT. They're blowing off MT TL customers who simply want another car of the same size and price and not something the size of an RL that costs five grand more. The RL has sold poorly, so I don't understand why Acura essentially turned the TL in another RL.

Colin

Of course it is. Every change to the line is a huge investment. Remember the delay in launching the RDX? That was because they found (late in the game) that changing the assembly order of a few small components saved them millions. 2 weeks of downtime to reprogram the machines, and then a slow test run of the line before they started the line for mass production.

Yes, it is just a transmission and to the uninformed it seems insignificant. Knowing how they sweat the tiniest detail, a different transmission is a whole order of magnitude. For example, (and I don't for sure, just speculating) Acura has never offered this exact engine with a 6MT. Does a 280 hp version require re certifying with the EPA? It is a different state of tune compared to the Accord Coupe.

What about parts? Manufacturers are required by the government to supply parts for every car for 10 years after it goes out of production. Anyway, I hear a lot of sarcasm creeping into your posts, lets just lay off the topic for now.

dom

What about previous TSX customers who don't want what is more or less the same car? Wanting a V6 or more power (I've been saying this since 03) is a natural evolution.

If you don't see why people are complaining then I don't know what to tell you. We see things entirely differently. And I'm not saying I'm 100% right and Honda will go bankrupt because they failed to offer an MT. Just my opinionated opinion.

dom

But an investment others are willing to make. I wonder how many MT IS250's or G37 sedan's are sold. Going by overall sales numbers for those lines I'd bet not much.

My point isn't to question you, I think I've made it pretty clear over the last while that you make excellent points which are probably all valid. But I think you're defending something that IMO doesn't really deserve defending. Just the way I see it. And I know you're just trying to provide a rational explanation. But I'm coming at this from the other, less rational side.

JD23

I understand why you as the consumer want a MT V6 TSX. I am perfectly comfortable with an AT, but I don't begrudge anyone who wants a MT.

I notice that you mentioned the IS250 and G37, which are manufactured by Toyota and Nissan, respectively. A few posts back I mentioned the earnings of Toyota, Nissan and Honda for the past fiscal year. Toyota and Nissan posted multi-billion dollar losses, while Honda had a profit of $1.4 billion. Do you think it might be possible that one of the reasons for Honda's profit is that it will not build a low volume vehicle like the TSX V6 MT during an economic crisis, while Toyota and Nissan are willing to do so?

For better or for worse, Honda is an extremely conservative company. I think its conservatism will allow it to emerge from the economic crisis in better condition than its competitors and hopefully offer more stronger vehicles in the future. It would be patently foolish for Honda to build a low vehicle during the current economic situation when it is struggling to turn a profit.

LuvMyTSX

The 4G TL lost quite a few customers who would have upgraded from the 3G. The 4G is far too big and the styling questionable. It's just not the same car. Those customers probably would have migrated to a V6 TSX if it had an MT.

Maybe they will add an MT in 2011 like they did for the TL.

dom

I think you're overstated the effect of offering an MT. I seriously doubt those loses were a result of offering an MT in limited numbers. That would be totally ignoring the other facts. That Toyota had become far too reliant on trucks and Nissan's lineup isn't nearly as strong as it could be. To name 2. There are far too many factors involved there.



Agree about them being conservative but we'll agree to disagree about the rest.

JD23

I mentioned it as "one of the reasons," not the reason. Also, I was only using it as an example to demonstrate that Toyota and Nissan are more willing to offer low-volume variations of vehicles, possibly resulting in higher costs and contributing to their poor financial performances.

The entire point of my argument is that this situation is much more complicated than Honda being clueless, or purposely trying to alienate customers, as some seem to think. You say that Toyota and Nissan "get it" by offering the IS250 and G37 with MT, whereas I say that those companies lost billions of dollars last year and are not a good point of comparison for Honda. Maybe the economic situation will improve in the next year and the 2011 TSX V6 will be offered with MT. Don't give up hope yet.

dom

And I've agreed all along that cost is likely (not certainly) the reason. But that still IMO doesn't make it the right decision. And again, using the fact that those other comapnies offer an MT isn't really valid when we don't know how offering that MT affected their books. Unless you can provide figures as to how those loses added up, suggesting the MT was a loss leader is nothing more than guess work.

And not a good point of comparison? Forget the financial aspect and play the customer for a second. You as the customer compare offerings, not the state of the companies financial affairs.

JD23

I'm not suggesting that offering is a MT is the main reason those companies lost money, I'm merely using it as an example to illustrate the difference in corporate philosophies. Honda's conservatism and focus on cost efficiency is beneficial during the downturn.

I understand and agree with your perspective as a consumer. On the other hand, the goal of the executives is to maximize shareholder value, not to satisfy a relatively small number of consumers. Sometimes the desires of executives and consumers coincide, but not always.

dom

I understand. But while we're on the topic, is it really wise of any of us to question decisions made by Toyota? Up until this year they were THE model to be used for how an automotive business should be run. They are still in a better position to withstand the economic storm than Honda is. They can afford a few missteps. Honda's can't afford as many.


Reality sucks.

Again, I know I'm small potatoes but I have to sit here and ask myself why there isn't a single a car from Honda I'd consider buying after buying nothing but for 16 years.

JeffS

If I am not mistaken, the MT IS250's and G37 are also sold in other markets allowing Lexus and Infiniti to spread the cost whereas the TSX V6 is likely to be a North America only product with limited production so as to not step on the TL's toes. This severely limits Acura's chances of recouping their money on the stick and the reason why I think they are going auto only at this time.

dom

I knew the IS was but I couldn't remember if the Infiniti was but it is. Sold as the Skyline in other parts of the world.

But that doesn't change the fact that, like Colin said, they still had to re-certify them for NA and offer parts for 10 years. Not sure how crash testing works but maybe? Some costs are still there. I don't think I've ever seen a MT G37 sedan or IS 250. But their there.

And again, I don't think I ever disagreed with costs being the determining factor here. My problem is with the numbers behind those costs. Are they really losing? and if so how much? IMO it should have been offered regardless. (broken record)

And I'm very doubtful of a market for a SH-AWD TL with the MT. Acura quoted they expect 5% of TL-SH's to be sold with the MT. In fact that is a perfect example of biting the bullet that I refereed to earlier. Why is acceptable for the TL but not the TSX?

Actually the TL numbers I quoted earlier were off as I used 60K per year. I don't think SH-AWD TL's are the majority. So like Colin said earlier using TSX sales as an example. Dealers can likely expect to see between 2-5 MT TL's per year.

LuvMyTSX

This new generation of TL is a different breed and honestly, an MT doesn't really fit. It's huge and doesn't seem to appeal to the same kind of buyer as in the past. IMO, an MT for the TSX is a much better fit.

SSFTSX

keep in mind Honda is in two wheeler business and they are profitable in downturn.
MT/AT for same car is not big deal. Euro Accord has both AT/MT in diesel. AT diesel Accord is expensive, and one of worst fuel economy in its class.

JD23

I agree that offering the TL with a MT seems a bit strange. As Colin mentioned earlier, Acura is trying to stagger its releases, so it's possible the TL's new 6MT will be introduced for the V6 TSX in 2011. Maybe a sportier Type-S version will be offered with MT as well.

dom

Jeff at TOV believes (not specifically told but he feels it was implied) that the TSX V6 will not see an MT at any point.

Colin

Interestingly, Toyota with all their infinate trim choices and seemingly endless models, does not offer a MT with the IS350. Showing that even they will draw the line at some point.
Explanation is correct. Offering plausible reasons is not necessarily defending. Maybe they will couple the MT and V6 in a future coupe, so leaving it off of the sedan makes sense?

Maybe they 'know' how many they will sell over the lifespan of the model (ie. there are 3000 potential MT V6 customers) so they want to cram all the production into 2 years vs. making 500 a year for 5 years?

w3fly3

Maybe they intentionaly withheld a 6MT V6 in order to call it a type-s model for the mid model change.

Viper98912

There are many possible reasons on why, everywhere from Type-S rumor to conservatism. Remember, Acura is conservative in the US when it comes to options - you pretty much get base or tech. Some models come with one engine, and with one transmission. So....while it seems that the TSX/Accord Euro/etc have a TON of parts out there available all around the world, in the US, it is conservative.

Type-S would be cool, but I can't wait that long

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

So is the plan for Acura to move in the direction of offering soul-less, isolated driving for pseudo-enthusiasts like Lexus or is Acura still trying retain some semblance of its sporting characteristic by remembering that there are still real driving enthusiasts out there who still want a satisfying driving experience but do not want to be stigmatized by the BMW brand name (not to mention ripped off by the price) but are not satisfied with some of the dynamic shortcomings of Infiniti?

Tigmd99

So, is FWD not enough of a shortcoming for you?

Colin

I'm not saying I know the plan. I am saying I think more about the realities of production than most posters here. I'm also saying that some are a little hypocritical when they point to the IS as an example of "how to do it" since the 350 is doing the same thing.

w3fly3

I bet the reason they offer MT with the TSX I4 and the IS250 only must be that it's not mostly enthusiasts that want MT but rather penny pinchers who want it for better fuel economy, and who have developed a mindset from way back when that says "manual is the practical way to go" in terms of repair costs and fuel efficiency that persists up to and beyond the point when automatics are just as efficient in both respects.

My aunt would fit the description perfectly. She talks about the fun of driving an MT like I do but in other areas of her life she is far more frugal than I am. It must be the case that the majority of MT buyers are more like her and less like me.

TSX69

I was behind a v6 Accord today & it got me thinking about how Acura really should have done something else than put a v6 badge on the trunk. For 1, it does not help differentiate Acura from Honda in terms of style. I think that I would rather have some other visual signifier like quad exhausts but it is better than going the TSX240 & TSX350 route.

ESHBG

The TSX MT mpg is less than the auto's, though.

w3fly3

Exactly. That could be why the MT sells so poorly. There were probably more economy minded proponents than enthusiasts, and with them out of the picture the enthusiasts are all alone in asking for an MT - which means a Type-S would make a lot of sense because that's who such cars appeal to.

I put the odds at better than 50% there will be a sporty trim TSX because Acura no longer has a TL Type-S, nor an RSX, nor an NSX. A Type-S TSX is the only thing that can save Acura from looking suspiciously like Buick.

mlody

For people who drive and prefer MT gearboxes, 1-2MPG less then the same car with an auto box makes no difference - I can tell you right now that I bet not a single person who picked up MT cared about MPG gains or drops and people who actually buy MT acura's bmw's, infiniti's for sure do not care what auto siblings offer in terms of MPG.

Perhaps someone who buys a manual KIA might rationale getting MT over Auto for MPG benefits but not people who spend $30k and up.

mlody

Acura is the only brand - perhaps honda is 2nd that offers vanilla cars with barely any factory options - save it for Navi option for most cases and Performance Tires lol.

That business model itself should save them alot of money, so developing MT along the Auto should not be unreasonable seeing that many current TL 6MT owners have no car to upgrade for many reasons - I for one, cant stand styling of the new TL and not soo willing to pay close to $45000 for a dressed up Accord with a fancy AWD system. TSX - especially in V6 form is really the answer for many and as few on these boards I was hoping that 6MT would be available with V6 TSX, instead we get MT with a dog slow car i4 and for people who are spoiled with 6MT in TL going that route is not an option

Colin

And just how many 3G MT owners are there? I don't know and I know that you don't either. I can guarantee that Acura knows and I suppose that they just decided that it wasn't worth it. Maybe the 2010 TL has to get it first? Or maybe as I speculated above:

Quote:

...they will couple the MT and V6 in a future coupe, so leaving it off of the sedan makes sense? Maybe they 'know' how many they will sell over the lifespan of the model (ie. there are 3000 potential MT V6 customers) so they want to cram all the production into 2 years vs. making 500 a year for 5 years?

But hey: It's nobody's fault you don't like the styling of the new TL. Obviously some do. Its nobody's fault that you will pay 36K (ish) for a gussied up Accord but don't want to pay ??? (no price has been announced) for a higher performing gussied up Accord. I'm sure some will.

In the end, no car company can please everybody all the time. Anyway, I'm done with this thread cause now I'm re-quoting myself which is just going round and round Enjoy the evening!

darmok

Colin,

Have you put in your first orders for the V6 TSX yet? (Sorry if you've posted about this already and I missed it.)

dom

Finally reached the bottom of the bag!

LuvMyTSX

Nope. They ordered 2010 I4s but no V6s.

SilverJ

No doubt. I hate the new TL...old mans car to me at least. I do love the new TSX but will never, ever drive a automatic or a 4 cylinder manual (unless its turbo) ...so I will continue to wait for a 6 speed/6 cyl TSX or leave the acura brand altogether.

Breako

All right, if that's the case, then B'Bye.

Mpunk

I actually have grown to like the styling of the '09+ TSX. My only complaints about it are the lack of an all-LED setup for the tails and brakes (c'mon Acura, light-bulb-based 3rd brake lights?!) and the interior could've been finished better (like the 3G TL, at least).

As a 3G TL 6MT driver, I simply have too much fun driving stick, even in the moderately hilly area where I live. So autos are no fun for me.

I would consider getting a 2G TSX V6 but only if it came with an MT. Although I buy the argument that it would cost Acura money to "engineer" the assembly line to accommodate building one, I don't buy that Acura would have to build this setup from scratch.

When Acura came out with the 4GTL, the excuse for not coming out with the 6-speed manual transmission with the initial product launch was that the then-current 6MT gearbox outfitted with the outgoing TL-S, w/ the 3.5L V6 and 286hp, couldn't accommodate the increased horsepower output of the new 3.7L V6 w/ 305hp. Of course, they also re-engineered the suspension and a host of other things as well. But the fact is that they already have the engine and setup from the old 3G TL-S that they could've simply put in the '10 TSX V6. As far as I know, aside from recertifying the car for emissions issues, and making other tweaks here and there, it's not like they're building or designing anything from scratch. The 3.5L in current form used in the base 4G TL and now the '10 TSX V6 is itself a detuned version of the old 3G TL-S (by 6hp).

Acura (and Infiniti) already invested the money developing the technology so the reason they don't offer it on more models is because of perceived lack of consumer demand and interest in the manual transmission. See below for an interesting article on this.

Lexus, on the other hand, simply doesn't have any manual transmission on the market at present to handle the high horsepower output of the 3.5L V6 used in the IS350 or even the 5.0L V8 used in the IS-F, for that matter. They have the know-how (assuming the original Supra engineers are still with the company) or they could've bought one from say, Borg Warner or ZF like some companies do, but being Lexus, they probably would've built one themselves. But also being the ultra-conservative and financially-restrained Lexus, they couldn't justify the R&D costs, even if it would've given them immediate street cred for doing so. Aside from good looks and a lot of power in the IS350, I would never consider getting that car because it is simply too boring of a drive. The paddle shifters are absolutely worthless, IMO. Now the IS-F is another story...

And I also don't buy how Acura is "conservative." As much as I still dislike the 4G styling - absolutely still hate the rear, btw - you have to admit they have balls for doing that to their bread-and-butter car. Even "cutting-edge" brands like BMW with its flame-surfaced crap largely spared the E90 and E92 3-series sedan and coupes from the garbage-of-a-design philosophy they threw on a formerly beautiful 5-series that they totally "uglified" in the current E60 guise. Even Infiniti was restrained when it redesigned the G35/G37. Not so with the FX, which keeps reminding me of marine life for some reason everytime I see the front-end. But still, conservative nonetheless.

Acura is also not conservative when you think that, even in this terrible market, they have the balls to introduce something so out-of-whack like the ZDX. Yeah, I'll reserve judgment until it actually comes out but come on! Is this even necessary? But Acura has the balls to do something like that. I don't agree with it, but they still have the balls.

But the decision to omit (at least for now) the MT on the '10 TSX V6, that's just a needless cost-cutting measure IMO. Yeah, it'll cost them money to offer it, but not so much as designing a whole new X6-like SUV such as the ZDX.

Here's the article on the manual transmission story, which I find troubling, as will perhaps some of you.

What's driving a shift away from manual transmissions
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/66604.html

Breako

Based upon the 2010 TSX owner's manual, the split-folding rear seat comes on both the 4 and 6 cylinder models.

Breako

Why do most competitors cheap-out and either not offer this wonderful feature at all (for example, Lexus IS) or only offer it as a costly option (for example, BMW 3 series)?