2010 TSX - V6 engine confirmed
12-28-2008, 04:01 PM
#161
3.5L high reviving premium fuel car. You are looking atleast 280bhp.
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.
12-28-2008, 04:17 PM
#162
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 47
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TSX V6 isn't going to be huge from a manufacturing cost perspective. The J35 is already widely used in Honda/Acura products globally. All there going to have to do is lop it in the TSX. It's not like it has to be developed from the ground up. Also it's a lot cheaper than using the even more limited only in the US low volume K23T.
12-28-2008, 04:34 PM
#163
The MB C class has 228 hp, the BMW 3 has 230 hp, the Audi A4 has 211 hp, and the Lexus IS has 204 hp. That's what I meant by "to be competitive in it's class only 230 hp is needed". 230 hp is essentially the minimum and Honda's V6 series is capable of much much more (as has been seen). A V6 TSX won't be outdated by 2010, especially if it comes with 250 hp 253 ft lb of torque.
It has been confirmed that the diesel TSX was going to have a different diesel motor than the Euro Accord's. The TSX was going to get a more performance oriented version of the i-DTEC. So it was still going to be somewhat exclusive to the US market.
The TSX V6 isn't going to be huge from a manufacturing cost perspective. The J35 is already widely used in Honda/Acura products globally. All there going to have to do is lop it in the TSX. It's not like it has to be developed from the ground up. Also it's a lot cheaper than using the even more limited only in the US low volume K23T.
12-28-2008, 05:51 PM
#164
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Somewhere out there
Age: 47
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are assuming that competition is standing still. Audi already has 270bhp 2.0TFSI. the moment it is introduced into US market. I am expecting BMW/MB to follow suit in bumping the bhp in entry level. and this can happen in less than two years.
There is already rumours of I-DTEC for Civic Type-R with 180bhp and 320 lbs-ft. There is no special high performance version for US market alone. Honda is not investing in TSX for US market. If V6 make sense for Japanese/European market by now it would be undertests or shown in Carshows.
It does ential costs of development as the whole structural rigidity of car has to be certfied with extral 200lbs of weight. Turbo diesel is already certified and weigh as much as 2.4 I-VTEC. EX GT I-DTEC is top model not 2.4 I-VTEC.
There is already rumours of I-DTEC for Civic Type-R with 180bhp and 320 lbs-ft. There is no special high performance version for US market alone. Honda is not investing in TSX for US market. If V6 make sense for Japanese/European market by now it would be undertests or shown in Carshows.
It does ential costs of development as the whole structural rigidity of car has to be certfied with extral 200lbs of weight. Turbo diesel is already certified and weigh as much as 2.4 I-VTEC. EX GT I-DTEC is top model not 2.4 I-VTEC.
The current TSX has been made with a more powerful engine in mind. It's structure has been made to sustain the increased power and it's made to fit the J35 engine. I think the addition of a V6 to the US market is showing that Honda is invested in the US market and more specifically Acura.
12-28-2008, 06:23 PM
#165
I believe that I read that the 270bhp 2.0TFSI was going to replace the current 3.2L not the 2.0T, so that doesn't really mean much. The entry leve will still be 211 hp. Also the next base 3 is only estimated to have 260 hp, and the next C even less. So a 250 hp TSX would be right in the middle and should be very competitive.
The current TSX has been made with a more powerful engine in mind. It's structure has been made to sustain the increased power and it's made to fit the J35 engine. I think the addition of a V6 to the US market is showing that Honda is invested in the US market and more specifically Acura.
2.4 I-VTEC TSX weigh as much as V6 Accord. Simply put V6 in it. and you looking at car heavier than TL. with reduced fuel economy and performance. EuroAccord price per car is way higher than TSX. It is more profitable for Japanese to supply European market the higher end version. If there is no V6 there untill this point. There is little chance of V6 in US market.
12-28-2008, 07:12 PM
#166
So now Acura is going to approach Mistsubishi for leg less turbo technology.
http://www.autospies.com/news/Who-is...hnology-18219/
Tags: 2010 Infiniti, BMW, Turbo
Tag Links: 2010 Infiniti, BMW, Turbo
Who is next to follow BMW's lead into turbo technology?
Thanks to a great tip from an internal mole, the Spies were first to announce that BMW was going to jump back in and start producing turbo's in their mainstream product line, almost two years before it actually was announced.
And boy has that decision paid off for them!
It’s put them years ahead of the competition.
But the Spies have obtained exclusive information that they won’t be able to rest for long.
Arch rival Infiniti’s engineers are already hard at work, trying to reverse engineer their magic and should have a response for the 2010 model year.
No further details were available from our source but we will stay close to this tip and update you as we get more information.
Remember where you heard it first!
Tags: 2010 Infiniti, BMW, Turbo
Tag Links: 2010 Infiniti, BMW, Turbo
Who is next to follow BMW's lead into turbo technology?
Thanks to a great tip from an internal mole, the Spies were first to announce that BMW was going to jump back in and start producing turbo's in their mainstream product line, almost two years before it actually was announced.
And boy has that decision paid off for them!
It’s put them years ahead of the competition.
But the Spies have obtained exclusive information that they won’t be able to rest for long.
Arch rival Infiniti’s engineers are already hard at work, trying to reverse engineer their magic and should have a response for the 2010 model year.
No further details were available from our source but we will stay close to this tip and update you as we get more information.
Remember where you heard it first!
12-28-2008, 07:22 PM
#167
I think they have launched Cobalt SS with 30mpg that will smoke any Acura.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov...ss/fi-garage24
Race for greener engines goes turbo
There isn’t a dynamometer in Detroit that doesn’t have a turbocharged engine being tested on it right now,” says Eric Noble, president of Carlab, an automotive consultant in Orange. “There’s still a lot of fuel savings that can be gotten out of a traditional engine
New turbo technology has essentially eliminated that gap while providing variable boost depending on the engine velocity, turbo manufacturers say. And turbos add only slightly to the cost of a car, they say, between $1,000 and $3,000 – part of which can be offset by using a smaller engine
We’re looking at equipping very, very large cars with very small four-cylinder, turbocharged engines,” GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said, mentioning the Cadillac DTS and the soon-to-be available Pontiac G8, both of which have eight-cylinder motors
Race for greener engines goes turbo
There isn’t a dynamometer in Detroit that doesn’t have a turbocharged engine being tested on it right now,” says Eric Noble, president of Carlab, an automotive consultant in Orange. “There’s still a lot of fuel savings that can be gotten out of a traditional engine
New turbo technology has essentially eliminated that gap while providing variable boost depending on the engine velocity, turbo manufacturers say. And turbos add only slightly to the cost of a car, they say, between $1,000 and $3,000 – part of which can be offset by using a smaller engine
We’re looking at equipping very, very large cars with very small four-cylinder, turbocharged engines,” GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said, mentioning the Cadillac DTS and the soon-to-be available Pontiac G8, both of which have eight-cylinder motors
12-28-2008, 08:13 PM
#169
I took nothing out of context. You said there have been no improvements to the TSX, I showed you there have been improvements. I showed you that you yourself have 'gushed' about the improvements. Nothing is out of context.
I think you would gain a lot of 'net cred' if you would Man Up and admit you were mistaken.
I think you would gain a lot of 'net cred' if you would Man Up and admit you were mistaken.
12-28-2008, 08:38 PM
#170
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
12-28-2008, 09:20 PM
#172
So in buying a new TSX for $30k + $4k for taxes and fees and then selling it off for $20k in four years you lose about $14k in all. If you buy a CPO for $20k + $2k taxes and fees and then sell it in four years for $12k you only lose about $10k in all. By not having stuck with a single car for several years you have pissed away several thousand dollars in sales tax and depreciation, and then try to justify it by saying you saved on a $500 maintanance job. It simply doesn't cost that much to maintain a late model Hinda product. Your argument would more water with European makes. You're an idiot and a troll.
$20K car has $1650 of taxes.
So net difference is $950.
After 4 years. You can still buy or trade in your 09 car for $17K there is a floor on its price.
$20K will be be 7 years old. no dealer wants it or bank willing to finance it. You have to sell it under $10k for cash to private buyer.
The net result is the same when consider maintainnce cost and tire replacement. where you can find Z-Rated tires that are the lightest and quietest for improved fuel economy under $200.
You havent thought out the whole deal. It is both the brake and tire job. that is atleast $1500 in my book. add to that transmission fluid change near to 50K mile. there is alot of things associated with Old car.
i am not even going into navigation disc upgrade. Mine was 05 version. so there u save $150. as new car has upgraded navigation. (all the time messed up the daylight savings). showing resturants that were long closed.
Than there is free 3 month XM service
and than there is free first oil change. I dont care that much as new car engine is much better. It has consume 10% of its Oil life with 1500mile on meter. the other was taking 10% at 500 mile distance.
12-28-2008, 09:33 PM
#173
I took nothing out of context. You said there have been no improvements to the TSX, I showed you there have been improvements. I showed you that you yourself have 'gushed' about the improvements. Nothing is out of context.
I think you would gain a lot of 'net cred' if you would Man Up and admit you were mistaken.
I think you would gain a lot of 'net cred' if you would Man Up and admit you were mistaken.
Improvement means some things which are not available for econobox. I would say that even the integrated turn signals have become smaller. Trying to cut corners.
Real improvement is in RL.
Price remained constant from 2005 but engine is upgraded and 18inch rims are added as free. Not to mention much better lighting.
TSX price has increased from 2005 to 2009. but nothing in improvement.
Improvement has to be taken into context.
12-28-2008, 10:03 PM
#174
Advanced
Join Date: Aug 2007
Age: 52
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I said no improvement. The things you are mentioning i take them for granted as even Honda Fit has paddle shifters.
Improvement means some things which are not available for econobox. I would say that even the integrated turn signals have become smaller. Trying to cut corners.
Real improvement is in RL.
Price remained constant from 2005 but engine is upgraded and 18inch rims are added as free. Not to mention much better lighting.
TSX price has increased from 2005 to 2009. but nothing in improvement.
Improvement has to be taken into context.
Improvement means some things which are not available for econobox. I would say that even the integrated turn signals have become smaller. Trying to cut corners.
Real improvement is in RL.
Price remained constant from 2005 but engine is upgraded and 18inch rims are added as free. Not to mention much better lighting.
TSX price has increased from 2005 to 2009. but nothing in improvement.
Improvement has to be taken into context.
12-28-2008, 11:17 PM
#175
dɐɹɔ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ
$30K has only $2500 taxes not $4K taxes.
$20K car has $1650 of taxes.
So net difference is $950.
After 4 years. You can still buy or trade in your 09 car for $17K there is a floor on its price.
$20K will be be 7 years old. no dealer wants it or bank willing to finance it. You have to sell it under $10k for cash to private buyer.
The net result is the same when consider maintainnce cost and tire replacement. where you can find Z-Rated tires that are the lightest and quietest for improved fuel economy under $200.
You havent thought out the whole deal. It is both the brake and tire job. that is atleast $1500 in my book. add to that transmission fluid change near to 50K mile. there is alot of things associated with Old car.
i am not even going into navigation disc upgrade. Mine was 05 version. so there u save $150. as new car has upgraded navigation. (all the time messed up the daylight savings). showing resturants that were long closed.
Than there is free 3 month XM service
and than there is free first oil change. I dont care that much as new car engine is much better. It has consume 10% of its Oil life with 1500mile on meter. the other was taking 10% at 500 mile distance.
$20K car has $1650 of taxes.
So net difference is $950.
After 4 years. You can still buy or trade in your 09 car for $17K there is a floor on its price.
$20K will be be 7 years old. no dealer wants it or bank willing to finance it. You have to sell it under $10k for cash to private buyer.
The net result is the same when consider maintainnce cost and tire replacement. where you can find Z-Rated tires that are the lightest and quietest for improved fuel economy under $200.
You havent thought out the whole deal. It is both the brake and tire job. that is atleast $1500 in my book. add to that transmission fluid change near to 50K mile. there is alot of things associated with Old car.
i am not even going into navigation disc upgrade. Mine was 05 version. so there u save $150. as new car has upgraded navigation. (all the time messed up the daylight savings). showing resturants that were long closed.
Than there is free 3 month XM service
and than there is free first oil change. I dont care that much as new car engine is much better. It has consume 10% of its Oil life with 1500mile on meter. the other was taking 10% at 500 mile distance.
12-29-2008, 02:48 AM
#176
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-29-2008, 04:36 AM
#177
Post #91 TSX introduced in 2003.So what they have done in past 6 years?
Post#106 We are not in 2003 anymore. TSX has to be updated with time.
Post#119 It is TSX that is stuck at 2003 with featurs/engine.
Post #137 Your simply not admitting it that there is no progress in TSX from 2003 to 2009. (bold this time)
Post#106 We are not in 2003 anymore. TSX has to be updated with time.
Post#119 It is TSX that is stuck at 2003 with featurs/engine.
Post #137 Your simply not admitting it that there is no progress in TSX from 2003 to 2009. (bold this time)
Why then didn't you buy a Civic or Fit? Are you that stupid to purchase a car that has made no improvements in 6 years (in your twisted little mind) and hasn't even kept up with econoboxes (your words)? Then to compound your stupidity, you traded it in for an even more expensive 2009 car that has made no improvements (again, your words not mine) compared to the Fit/Civic.
It must be that you are not spending your own money. Mommy and Daddy buy your car? It's OK, lots of kids have their parents buy them a car. I wouldn't look down on you for that. There are a lot of other things I can look down on you for.
12-29-2008, 04:47 AM
#178
https://acurazine.com/forums/2g-tsx-2009-2014-143/car-cover-702625/
12-29-2008, 07:42 AM
#179
Senior Moderator
http://www.familycar.com/RoadTests/AcuraTL-S/
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2004-to-2008-acura-tl-1.htm
I recall reading a number of reviews where torquesteer was mentioned. That is why I brought it up in the first place. I'm all for more HP in the new engine as long as Acura can address the negative aspects of it. I would want the TSX to remain nimble and well balanced with more HP and not become overweight and less manageable.
or consumerguide auto. I still don't recall seeing much complaint from MT, R&T, C&D or Automobile about torque steer.
In the several road tests and comparison tests they did with the 3rd gen TL. I'm sure it was mentioned a couple of times but the car was never not recommended or lost a test based on torque steer. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
12-29-2008, 07:44 AM
#180
Senior Moderator
Funny isn't it? I think they should put the F22C in the TSX as the option engine (not enough torque to cause torque steer), but there aren't enough 'true' enthusiasts for that option. It's ironic that so many complain that the TSX isn't the nimble car the G1 was, yet they want a V6 and an automatic. Irony is a bitch.
Regardless, with the recent announcements from Honda, I wouldn't be surprised if the V6 TSX has been scrapped as well, (if it was even on the way). And maybe its the right thing to do at this point in time.
12-29-2008, 08:08 AM
#181
I said both tire and brake replacement. A car having more than 35k miles on it needs tire replacement in less than year. so its better to get new car with new tires. and for your information. 04 TSX are available from $11o $14K. and they are only 4 years old. A 7 year old TSX will easily be under $10k and will dealer cannot make it CPO to again sell it to some one else. So trading value is at rock bottom.
12-29-2008, 08:13 AM
#182
So now you're changing your tune. Before it was all about the TSX not improving. You said (again) in this thread alone:
I answered your argument and (rather patiently I think) showed you what changes have been made. So now you've recanted your original argument and what you 'really' meant to say (those 4 other times) was the TSX hasn't improved compared to the Civic and Fit.
Why then didn't you buy a Civic or Fit? Are you that stupid to purchase a car that has made no improvements in 6 years (in your twisted little mind) and hasn't even kept up with econoboxes (your words)? Then to compound your stupidity, you traded it in for an even more expensive 2009 car that has made no improvements (again, your words not mine) compared to the Fit/Civic.
It must be that you are not spending your own money. Mommy and Daddy buy your car? It's OK, lots of kids have their parents buy them a car. I wouldn't look down on you for that. There are a lot of other things I can look down on you for.
I answered your argument and (rather patiently I think) showed you what changes have been made. So now you've recanted your original argument and what you 'really' meant to say (those 4 other times) was the TSX hasn't improved compared to the Civic and Fit.
Why then didn't you buy a Civic or Fit? Are you that stupid to purchase a car that has made no improvements in 6 years (in your twisted little mind) and hasn't even kept up with econoboxes (your words)? Then to compound your stupidity, you traded it in for an even more expensive 2009 car that has made no improvements (again, your words not mine) compared to the Fit/Civic.
It must be that you are not spending your own money. Mommy and Daddy buy your car? It's OK, lots of kids have their parents buy them a car. I wouldn't look down on you for that. There are a lot of other things I can look down on you for.
It is going from Point A to Point B in most efficient and quickest way. I do use of real time traffic for any freeway congestion/accidents.
12-29-2008, 10:14 AM
#183
Team Owner
they were just the first hits I found on google.
at the turns this thread has taken.
12-29-2008, 10:37 AM
#184
Senior Moderator
Point being, the TSX would hardly be the first FWD car to get a V6. And its not as if its the perfect FWD car as is. You guys act as if its balance is automotive perfection.
Sure the balance will suffer, but what about all those looking for more power but still wanting the size, styling and great interior the TSX has to offer. And no one is suggesting you kill the 2.4...Options. I honestly haven't read any of the banter with SSFTSX and every one else. Lets keep this on topic.
12-29-2008, 11:19 AM
#185
dɐɹɔ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ
Point being, the TSX would hardly be the first FWD car to get a V6. And its not as if its the perfect FWD car as is. You guys act as if its balance is automotive perfection. Sure the balance will suffer, but what about all those looking for more power but still wanting the size, styling and great interior the TSX has to offer. And no one is suggesting you kill the 2.4...Options.
I honestly haven't read any of the banter with SSFTSX and every one else. Lets keep this on topic.
Sure the balance will suffer, but what about all those looking for more power but still wanting the size, styling and great interior the TSX has to offer. And no one is suggesting you kill the 2.4...Options. I honestly haven't read any of the banter with SSFTSX and every one else. Lets keep this on topic.
When I had a G35 everyone was going crazy over the new 3.7 liter engine in the G37 coupe, someone who was close to infiniti said it will NEVER happen, the 3.7 won't fit between the frame. I scratched my head by the explanation because I was under the impression the changes were internal(bore and stroke) and not external, a 3.7 and 3.5 VQ-HR would look the same on the outside. But the source said it was reliable, had copies of emails, etc... A year later we have a G37 sedan and the 3.5 isn't used in any current G. The point is, until the manufacturer wants us to know, we won't know.
12-29-2008, 11:40 AM
#186
12-29-2008, 11:52 AM
#187
dɐɹɔ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ
I think it would be interesting, a TSX S-Type, F22C, lower stiff suspension, larger sportier wheels, blacked out trim(instead of chrome), sport leather seats... hmm
12-29-2008, 11:56 AM
#188
What you write:
What I see:
I do travel at highway speeds. Usually a little faster than normal traffic. Fit/Civic are little underpowered for that role and fuel economy at those speeds for Fit/Civic is no better than TSX. (80 to 90mph). and Fit/Civic are noisy for those speeds. but they are way better than 03 Civic. and i have 24hr roadside assistance part of the car. So it is whole package that you have look into it.
It is going from Point A to Point B in most efficient and quickest way. I do use of real time traffic for any freeway congestion/accidents.
It is going from Point A to Point B in most efficient and quickest way. I do use of real time traffic for any freeway congestion/accidents.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Let me change the subject Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah TSX Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah I'm can't make up my mind Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Is the TSX better than a Civic Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah In one post I say it is and in another I say it isn't Blah Blah Blah Blah
12-29-2008, 11:59 AM
#189
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honda expressed interest in winning over current 1G TSX owners with the 2G TSX. Even if you cynically assume their game plan will stay the same they will have to pull some rabbits out of their hat to get repeat business in three or four years. And no, the TL doesn't count. Even Honda knows that.
12-29-2008, 12:00 PM
#190
Well, I had a 2000, my wife a 2001 and when those leases were up we replaced them with a 2004 and 2005. We've had 4 of them and I don't recall ever wanting the K24 in my car. Heh, if those driving a F22 think it is a little low on torque, you have no idea how much shifting was required for the F20C!
12-29-2008, 12:01 PM
#191
Team Owner
Point being, the TSX would hardly be the first FWD car to get a V6. And its not as if its the perfect FWD car as is. You guys act as if its balance is automotive perfection. Sure the balance will suffer, but what about all those looking for more power but still wanting the size, styling and great interior the TSX has to offer. And no one is suggesting you kill the 2.4...Options.
I honestly haven't read any of the banter with SSFTSX and every one else. Lets keep this on topic.
Sure the balance will suffer, but what about all those looking for more power but still wanting the size, styling and great interior the TSX has to offer. And no one is suggesting you kill the 2.4...Options. I honestly haven't read any of the banter with SSFTSX and every one else. Lets keep this on topic.
I think I approach this discussion from a slightly different perspective than some other members. I was/am happy with the dimensions of the 1st gen TSX though I still feel its about 150-200lb. too heavy. In my mind an increase in HP would, of course, be welcome, as would a boost in torque. But, to me, it must more than compensate for the additional weight. If the front geometry can be tweaked to eliminate torquesteer then great. If not and SH-AWD is introduced then here comes more weight. A V-6 would be heavier, further skewing the F/R wight ratio forward. All these "detriments" can be overcome with electronics and other "additions" that add more weight to the car. I guess where I'm going is that I like my 1st gen for what I think it is, a sporty well balanced sedan, and by adding size, power and weight in the 2nd gen the TSX is already going in the direction of the TL (pricewise as well). Things may be different now and I'm probably looking at it from a 2004 perspective. I would love to have seen the 2nd gen keep the 1st gen dimensions, drop 100 lb. and add 10% power&torque boost. That would have been a car I would have seriously considered buying.
12-29-2008, 12:09 PM
#192
Senior Moderator
I don't think the point was balance, though I could be wrong. I think the point is, will 30-40hp increase offset the 200lbs increase in weight, in terms of straight line performance, passing, etc... My guess is that it would, but at 30hp it won't be by much, if anything. Is a few tenths of a second in the quarter mile worth 3-5MPG lost in fuel economy? If its marketed right it probably would fly, but I just can't see them putting a V6 in the TSX, its been talked about for so long and still nothing.
When I had a G35 everyone was going crazy over the new 3.7 liter engine in the G37 coupe, someone who was close to infiniti said it will NEVER happen, the 3.7 won't fit between the frame. I scratched my head by the explanation because I was under the impression the changes were internal(bore and stroke) and not external, a 3.7 and 3.5 VQ-HR would look the same on the outside. But the source said it was reliable, had copies of emails, etc... A year later we have a G37 sedan and the 3.5 isn't used in any current G. The point is, until the manufacturer wants us to know, we won't know.
When I had a G35 everyone was going crazy over the new 3.7 liter engine in the G37 coupe, someone who was close to infiniti said it will NEVER happen, the 3.7 won't fit between the frame. I scratched my head by the explanation because I was under the impression the changes were internal(bore and stroke) and not external, a 3.7 and 3.5 VQ-HR would look the same on the outside. But the source said it was reliable, had copies of emails, etc... A year later we have a G37 sedan and the 3.5 isn't used in any current G. The point is, until the manufacturer wants us to know, we won't know.
I don't think they'd waste their time with a 240HP J. And the Pilot engine, correct me if I'm wrong it tuned for torque, which wouldn't make much if any sense if the TSX. I think if the V6 was on the table, its no longer there after the recent news to come out of Honda.
And yes, the 3.5 is physically the same size and lighter than the old 3.0L J.
12-29-2008, 12:12 PM
#193
Senior Moderator
I've been saying for years I'd have loved to see a 240HP 2.4 with a 9K redline in the TSX. Low end torque was never an issue for me, but high RPM performance was and still is.
12-29-2008, 12:13 PM
#194
I guess where I'm going is that I like my 1st gen for what I think it is, a sporty well balanced sedan, and by adding size, power and weight in the 2nd gen the TSX is already going in the direction of the TL (pricewise as well). Things may be different now and I'm probably looking at it from a 2004 perspective. I would love to have seen the 2nd gen keep the 1st gen dimensions, drop 100 lb. and add 10% power&torque boost. That would have been a car I would have seriously considered buying.
I agree that it becomes a 'knee bone connected to the thigh bone" kinda thing. A V6 adds weight (not just the engine, but tranny as well) in exactly the wrong place: over the front wheels. BUT for the non enthusiast it is smoother and easier to drive, and MUCH quieter. As I mentioned earlier, if priced right, it could fill the hole in the lineup left when the TL moved up market.
They need a solution to fill the hole the old TSX left behind.
12-29-2008, 12:19 PM
#195
dɐɹɔ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ
But a J with 275HP?
I don't think they'd waste their time with a 240HP J. And the Pilot engine, correct me if I'm wrong it tuned for torque, which wouldn't make much if any sense if the TSX. I think if the V6 was on the table, its no longer there after the recent news to come out of Honda.
And yes, the 3.5 is physically the same size and lighter than the old 3.0L J.
I don't think they'd waste their time with a 240HP J. And the Pilot engine, correct me if I'm wrong it tuned for torque, which wouldn't make much if any sense if the TSX. I think if the V6 was on the table, its no longer there after the recent news to come out of Honda.
And yes, the 3.5 is physically the same size and lighter than the old 3.0L J.
275HP, while a great idea will never happen, it would make the lower priced TSX compete directly with the TL. They would have to de-tune the engine so it would not compete quite so directly. All manufacturers play the game, give them what makes sense for our lineup not what is best for the consumer. I don't think agree, but then again its not my decision.
12-29-2008, 12:23 PM
#197
dɐɹɔ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ
Well, I had a 2000, my wife a 2001 and when those leases were up we replaced them with a 2004 and 2005. We've had 4 of them and I don't recall ever wanting the K24 in my car. Heh, if those driving a F22 think it is a little low on torque, you have no idea how much shifting was required for the F20C!
12-29-2008, 12:28 PM
#198
Senior Moderator
Not really. The 3 and 5 series share engines. The C and E share engines. At Audi the A4 shares its 6 with the A6, Lexus has the IS350 and GS350 and so on. Those manufactures are comfortable enough with the differentiation of their higher end model to put the same engine in.
Problem is at Acura, I think they're too closely priced to pull that off. At least up here, the top tier TSX is already the same price as a base TL. So I wouldn't see room for a V6 TSX.
Problem is at Acura, I think they're too closely priced to pull that off. At least up here, the top tier TSX is already the same price as a base TL. So I wouldn't see room for a V6 TSX.
12-29-2008, 12:40 PM
#199
A 2.0L (K20 what ever its names) EuroAccord is lighter than 2.4L by 200lbs. and is cheaper by $1500.
Let suppose they turbo charged. 2.0L to 230bhp and about 250 ft-lb of torque. So for essentially the same price and weight figures you get much better performance sedan.
V6 adds cost and weight and it will not fly with enthusiasts. Edmunds themselve admit it. Turbo is so much fun .
Car&driver got 20mpg over 40km mileage run. No complaints about engine. TSX should get average 25mpg with 2.4L or 30mpg with 2.0L.
Let suppose they turbo charged. 2.0L to 230bhp and about 250 ft-lb of torque. So for essentially the same price and weight figures you get much better performance sedan.
V6 adds cost and weight and it will not fly with enthusiasts. Edmunds themselve admit it. Turbo is so much fun .
Car&driver got 20mpg over 40km mileage run. No complaints about engine. TSX should get average 25mpg with 2.4L or 30mpg with 2.0L.
http://www.caranddriver.com/blog/200...road-test.html
2007 Acura RDX - Long-Term Road Test
But that’s not the case. The EPA projects 17 mpg city and 22 mpg highway for the RDX, and over the course of 40,000 miles, we averaged 20 (2000 gallons, $7760).
There were also a few remarks about nonlinear response and lumpy idle from the turbo engine, but they were overshadowed by enthusiasm for the RDX’s snappy acceleration. Spool-up for the variable-flow Aisin turbo was quick, the cogs in the five-speed automatic were well matched to the engine’s power band, and the transmission’s manumatic function, augmented by paddle shifters, was above average. All of this added up to gratifying go power for the cut and thrust of urban traffic, a key component in the RDX’s high fun-to-drive quotient
In addition to trouble-free operation, the RDX also picked up its pace as the miles accumulated. In our initial track test, with 1540 miles on the odo, the RDX clocked 0 to 60 in 6.7 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 15.3 seconds at 91 mph. With 38,936 miles, it got to 60 in 6.4 seconds and hit the quarter-mile line in 15.1 at 92 mph. Acceleration of many of our long-term test cars improves with age, but the RDX improved more than most.
2007 Acura RDX - Long-Term Road Test
But that’s not the case. The EPA projects 17 mpg city and 22 mpg highway for the RDX, and over the course of 40,000 miles, we averaged 20 (2000 gallons, $7760).
There were also a few remarks about nonlinear response and lumpy idle from the turbo engine, but they were overshadowed by enthusiasm for the RDX’s snappy acceleration. Spool-up for the variable-flow Aisin turbo was quick, the cogs in the five-speed automatic were well matched to the engine’s power band, and the transmission’s manumatic function, augmented by paddle shifters, was above average. All of this added up to gratifying go power for the cut and thrust of urban traffic, a key component in the RDX’s high fun-to-drive quotient
In addition to trouble-free operation, the RDX also picked up its pace as the miles accumulated. In our initial track test, with 1540 miles on the odo, the RDX clocked 0 to 60 in 6.7 seconds and ran the quarter-mile in 15.3 seconds at 91 mph. With 38,936 miles, it got to 60 in 6.4 seconds and hit the quarter-mile line in 15.1 at 92 mph. Acceleration of many of our long-term test cars improves with age, but the RDX improved more than most.
12-29-2008, 12:42 PM
#200
The 2009 is quieter, corners flatter with significantly less understeer (than later G1 TSXs), has a lighter clutch action, and of course lighter steering.