Colin

1) First off, cars are not investments
2) These two statements contradict each other.
3) Wrong, a base 2006 TSX was about 28,580 with dest. The current TSX is 29,675.
4) I see reality just fine, you have an alternate reality that ONLY YOU live in. In this reality of yours, you can make statements that contradict each other to bolster a faltering position (see above)

SSFTSX

A car that can fit turbo diesel since 2003 can surely fit turbo gasoline engine with minimum investments. Every one is going to forced induction. Acura was definitely not planning for future. Europeans are fine as most of sales are turbo deisel so V6 it does not matter to them.
www.honda.co.uk. Deisel 5AT has same performance figures for 0-60 as 2.4 I-VTEC.
V6 TSX will definitely be priced higher than deeply discounted and outdated 08 TL. Essentially 09 TSX with 4 cylinder is selling at similar pricea as V6 TL. By not suppling V6 to TSX. it already losing customers.
they simply cant continue with same engine as 2003.

SSFTSX

Cars are investment you dont want to lose money on depreciation/maintaince/time on repairs by making wrong decision.
I was comparing price of 2003 TSX to 2009 TSX. You cannot increase price when price of electronics/navigation/computer chips/blue tooth for same performance has declined. Tires and rim essentially same size.
Infact 215/50/VR17 Michellen cost $200 on tire rack but 225/50/VR17 MXMV cost $163 on tirerack. there you go Acura saved money on tires.

Colin

There is your Reality Distortion Field (RDF) again. Do you invest in stocks or bonds with the goal to lose as little as possible? No you invest to make money. You will never make money on a mass produced car.

There was no 2003 TSX, only a 2004. However, if your RDF lets you call it a 2003 then fine. Still, it's gone from about 27,180 to the current 29,675 not 32 as you stated.

SSFTSX

Not spending extra which you can avoid through discretion is also return on investment. Every thought about opportnity cost in scenario analysis.

Car was introduced in April 2003 in US market. there is $3K difference even by your measurement. but this car is essentially 2002 for Interntional market. This is first time that TSX was introduced in US with same time frame as other markets.

(Cj)

Diesel is a niche market in the US, and I don't know what you're complaining about since diesel was at one point on the table for the TSX. It was recently nixed because of diesel fuel cost in the US.

Turbo gas motors can be good when done right but Honda has yet to produce an effective K series turbo. For instance, the K23T in the RDX lacks the refinement of Honda's NA K series engines. When buying a luxury sedan one of the number one things people want is refinement. At this point Acura would be better off making an available V6 and keeping the old K24. The J35 is refined efficient and powerful all things people want in a luxury sedan.

Acura's wasn't and isn't losing sales from NOT having a V6 TSX at launch. From the 09 TSX to 09 TL launch (about 6 months) the 08 TL has been selling in the thousands every month. The gap for a V6 TSX is only going to form when dealers run out of 08 TLs (which will be soon). Likely the V6 TSX announcement will take place when dealers have been able to clear enough 08 TL inventory as to not create headaches at the launch of the V6 TSX.

SSFTSX

I didnot said diesel TSX is must for US market.
Honda has all the time in world to make turbo gasoline as refined as possible. after all they did with diesel engine which is much more difficult.
As i said future is forced induction for luxury cars. BMW/Audi/MB has done with diesels and they are entering in gasoline engines in bigway.
Acura should introduce things that are atleast comparable if not beat the competition.
It will not take long time before 270bhp TFSI 2.0 comes into A4. and it massive low end torque and is among the quiestest in its class. as much as 7 series.
Acura should not even attempt to make TSX USDM Accord with V6 engine.

Honda made alot of claims.

Colin

Dude, you bought a new car because your old TSX needed tires and maintenance. (from your November post)

You are a hypocrite in the worst way. You say (now in Post #119 in this thread)

Yet in November it was "worth the price and convenience."

Hypocrite: Did you look it up?

SSFTSX

Yes i bought it for the same reason to avoid further expenditure on September 05 built car.



how do u know about my trade/price/interest rate and so many other consideration.
TSX is good for if some one is going for trade with decent incentives but not good on its own merits.

Colin

I don't have to know anything about your situation or the deal you got. I do know that nobody gave you more for your car in 2008 than you paid for it in 2006. Thus, it's not an investment as you stated.

So you bought a car that was not good because the deal was good. You spent money on a brand new car even though your 'old' car was only 2-3 years old. You knew when you got the car that it wasn't a good car 'on it's own merits' yet you said earlier that it was "worth the price"

(RDF strikes again)

SSFTSX

Remember i am recent transplant. I didont bought car in 2006. I bought it in Janaury 2008 CPO. Just check it under 1G owner sign in page. I have previous experiance with EuroAccord in other countries. The amount of knowledge i had about these things it is beyond ordinary sales men or Maintaianance tech ability to convince me otherwise.
thats why you make assumption without checking facts. the amount of driving and some othe things it is good investment for me to refresh it.

H1K1F1

What is this incoherent babble?

melody

^ LOL, I was wondering the same thing...

wackura

SSFTSX reminds me of one of those stereotypical arrogant arab chauvenist types, like the president of Iran, especialy this bit "I have previous experiance with EuroAccord in other countries. The amount of knowledge i had about these things it is beyond ordinary sales men or Maintaianance tech ability to convince me otherwise." He's a globe trotting jetsetter who somehow manages to find the time for arguments on the internet.

I think he has somehow convinced himself that buying a new car is a smart investment. Cars depreciate the most rapidly in the first five years so anyone who says they buy a new car for any reason other than the pure joy of driving a newer car is full of crap.

SSFTSX

Lets do simple calculation.
A $23K 06 TSX would be around $8k to $10k in next 4 years.
$30K 2009 TSX would be around $17 to $18k in next 4 years.
But you can add extra warranty/maintainance cost to 06. End result is pretty even.

Colin

Even worse, you bought two cars in a year! I work in this business and even I know that I can't do that and not loose more money than is wise. Please don't lecture anyone on finances as you have zero credibility.
Edit: Ooops, I spoke too soon, you've lectured wackura...

At one time I was willing to give you a pass for language, but no more. Frankly, it's because you're kind of a prickly individual. You have lost every factual argument so now you resort to claiming that it's because "i am recent transplant'? Weak!

Also, please don't tell me to check facts, when you're as bad as I've seen when it comes to fact checking. Remember the word Hypocrite?

SSFTSX

Yes i bought two cars during the year and i dont see anyreason me losing money on it over medium term like 3 to 4 years. The first car was CPO and depreciated already. Needed brake and tire job. I am not even going into dent/paint issues. The grill was peeling.
Your simply not admitting it that there is no progress in TSX from 2003 to 2009.
Take the example of Honda City (Sedan version of Honda Fit). It started with 70bhp engine in late 90s and now it is with 120 bhp standard.
Moreover it has integrated turn signals/MID. (TSX/EuroAccord was the first in integrated turn signals). Now the bottom of Honda is reaching TSX in electronics and style.

SSFTSX

Look at the design of lights/bumper/grill/integrated turn signals/fog lights. Didnt it shows styling cues from TSX which were unique?

wackura

First, an '06 TSX is readily available for under $20,000. In four years I suspect they will be around to $12k with reasonable mileage and discounting inflation. Second you didn't account for higher tabs, fees and taxes, higher insurance and higher interest on the larger loan amount. If buying and dumping a new car was equal to buying a slightly used car everyone would buy a new car. You grossly overestimate your thinking abilities.

You make me picture some rich arab kid who has a bunch of money in an oil trust fund who thinks that possessing money and being good with money must be the same thing. I just can't fathom how anyone who actualy earned money could be so stupid with money.

wackura

Tires + brakes, maybe $500. Buying a new car sets you back many thousands in associated costs. Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

SSFTSX

My Car was CPO 06. It has higer interest rates. My interest rates now are just next to nothing. Insurance. Well i changed to Amica. It is about $110 a month. $10 more than 06. Remember i go good trade and i dont have to invest money in tires/brakes for next three years. Not only that i swaped rims and tires to 18inch.
Yes you can get 06 TSX at $20K now. But it is one year more depreciated compared to beginning of year and i highly doubt you can get 20k mileage 06. All are in mid 30s to 50k miles now. and in next two to three year alot of 07 and 08 People will return also to upgrad to some thing new. Price will rapidly depcreciate towards to under 10K. Remember there will always be less 2G TSX than 1G TSX. You should always understand most banks dont finance more than 60k miles or 5 years old. So dealer has hard time pushing them through alot. so trading is far difficult for 7 year old car compared to 4 year old.

SSFTSX

how is tires+brakes with all monting and balancing/wheel alignment cost $500?. Just look at Michelien/Yoko/Brigdgestone.

chibianh

k.. let's get back on topic. How much heavier is the 3.5 vs the current 2.4?

iTimmy

With transmission the V6 is roughly 200lbs heavier then the 4cyl. A complete K24 engine weighs around 320lbs or so that's what I've been able to infer from information online.

Colin

In 2003 the TSX had:

no Memory seats

no Bluetooth

no Illuminated steering wheel buttons

no Power passenger seat

no iPod connection

no Auxiliary connection

no 8" subwoofer

no Foglights

no EPS

no ACE

no DRL

no Active head restraints

no Brake assist

no Deflected Disc Shock absorbers

no Multifunction Display

You keep saying that I refuse to admit the car hasn't changed. You yourself were gushing over all the improvements as I pointed out earlier:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...3#post10169093

You said:

Hypocrite

SSFTSX

Most of these things are part of Honda Fit/Civic. they even progressed from 4speed automatic to 5speed automatic. Horsepower substantially increased during this time. I am not even going into Honda Accord.
It is not progress if ur competing with econobox.. Just look at cheapness of electronics/camera/navigation etc.

Even this Honda City got chrome door handles.





Compared the progress of RL/TL/MDX from 2003 to 2009?

iTimmy

To add fuel to the fire, I still think the powerplant from the RDX is the answer for the TSX is a turbo 4 cylinder, with SH-AWD and optional 6MT. Easily tunable, and still different from a TL, so much that it probably wouldn't cause much for cross shopping between the two. In addition any turbo car is more youthful then its NA sibling, people hear turbo they think sporty.

I think a V6 in the TSX is a pipe dream, its been talked about for a long time and still nothing. K23 turbo, now that would be a fun car.

Colin

Loser, that is not what you said. You said:
I have shown you that there are a number of changes. RDF (or is it ADD). You can't even comprehend (or read) what you wrote just a few minutes ago.

Wait, are you saying the TL has made progress? You hypocrite. Look at all your posts in the TL forum blasting the TL and what a failure it is.

(Cj)

I don't think Acura wants to grab the WRX crowd. A V6 would be more refined and seen as more luxurious.

But I admit that the K23T although unrefined would probably easily whip 0-60 in less than 6 seconds in a sedan like the TSX (making the TSX faster than the TL SH-AWD).

But I think Acura would prefer a more efficient upmarket engine for the TSX. The torquey VCM J35 would probably easily get 27 mpg EPA.

Colin

I agree 100% The 'rally crowd' is well served by their two choices as it is and Honda with NO rally heritage would be viewed as a 'me too' effort. With the diesel canceled, the V6 is the only obvious choice remaining for the upmarket engine.

However, the rumored coupe that (as told to me) won't be a rehash of the CL would be a nice place for the Turbo to find a home.

SSFTSX

The problem is that you take my statements out of context.
TL has made more progress compared to TSX.
But TL hasnt made enough progress to compete with Infinit/BMW/Lexus/Audi etc.
Just look at context. Nissan was essentially a bankrupt company untill late 90s. But they still managed to put to LED/7speed auto/18inch/330bhp/RWD/AWD into its entry level Sedan. This is called progress.

TSX get things with time that Honda City/Civic is getting anyway. when it is going to get LED lights. Its progress should be measured in its own class. where it was leader when it was launched in 2002.

SSFTSX

Honda V6 is outdated if it is introduced for 2010 model year.
Europeans and Japanese like 4cylinder turbos than V6 which is primarily market for EuroAccord.
It will be stupid to introduce V6 for small US market but Honda has done alot of wrong things. So i dont expect right decision.
TSX lower aerodynamic drag and weight should give EPA of 27 even with turbo at constant speeds.

CarbonGray Earl

People would rather see a V6 than a turbo. That's just the way it is. Look at Audi's config. 2.0t is at the bottom rung.

I don't know why Honda peeps are getting hard-ons for turbos. Turbos aren't honda. The so called "wrong decision" is wrong for you but right for honda.

This is america, not Europe or Japan. We like bigger displacement as opposed to FI. Honda Europe works in Europe, not Acura America. A 4cyl turbo, no matter how you cut it, will look like a bottom rung offering, like the 2.0T Saab 9-3, 2.0T Audi A-4. The K24 should be the entry level, with a J-series v6 on top. That way, it aligns itself with those products, and it provides a counter argument to the question that's always haunted the TSX: why would you get a 4cyl TSX if you can get a v6 Accord for the same price.

...and just because tuning enthusiasts want a tunable turbo to take out WRXs or Evo's doesn't mean its right for the "progress" of the brand.

Lastly, the cost to make a J-series V6, the corporate v6, is likely smaller per unit at this point since its made in larger quantities than an engine that goes completely against Honda philosophies (they are the engine supplier after all), and is made for one vehicle only. Ramping up production on such an engine, even in small quantities, will be counter to the manufacturing effiency Honda and Acura are so famously known for. Thus, quantities in which the TSX is sold might not be the only factor here in the success or "progress" of the vehicle. Lower cost to make due to economies of scale, the ability to ramp up production if needed, and the fact that Americans prefer v6s all make the v6 a more attractive option.

SSFTSX

TSX is built in Japan like turbo diesel Honda Accord. It is more economical to spread the turbo kits around than creating V6 engine that will make car heavy and unacceptable to rest of the world.

SSFTSX

I cant imagine they are going to introduce V6 is such low volume environment.

Turbo AWD RDX with 18inch Rims cost $37K. It is reasonable to assume that turbo SH-AWD with 18inch TSX can be made for about $35K as it has larger volume.
A V6 Accord cost $2200 more than 4cylinder similar model. Add to that cost of 18inch rim and SH-AWD. The total cost will be more than $5K. which is bit more than turbo 4 Sh-AWD.

iTimmy

Turbo's don't work, people don't want them, they are only for rally style cars? BMW is cleaning up with their N54 I6 twin turbo, it has redefined what is possible with luxury/performance in an "affordable" package. Yes it is an I6 and not an I4, but it would work, that much I am sure of. The 335i is a monster, with a chip is is faster in a straight line then a base vette and still has the refinement and luxury BMW customers demand, all while offering "good" fuel economy.

A V6 in the TSX makes no sense with the TL, period. A 4cyl turbo, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense, if implemented properly and market properly. Someone mentioned Audi and the 2.0T they have in the base A4, 9 out 10 A4's I see on the road are 2.0T, so it is clearly working for them.

CraigMacDTA

Wow...I can't believe I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading this...Colin man, ignore the kid...he's worse than a kid in a candy store being told no.

SSFTSX

turbos coming in 7 series and new A6. It is the way to go than higher displacement engines. better fuel and lower emission and much higher performance.
Market will force Honda to do that just like in diesel. so why wait and wasting time in obsolete sixcylinder.

Audi new this for decades so never went out of turbo business.

H1K1F1

Watch as the little bug known as SSFTSX skitters around, desperately seeking cover.

(Cj)

A turbo J35 would be interesting for an upcoming CL.

A Honda V6 wouldn't be outdated in 2010. Honda's J series V6's are already competitive and very good. All they need is better transmissions. Anyway for it's class anything over 230 hp is competitive.
A V6 wouldn't be a huge increase in manufacturing cost for Honda. It's much less risky than the diesel introduction would have been.