Now that we can be fairly certain we'll see a diesel model, here's a follow up to my original poll.

 

Crap. Browser died and I can't add the poll. Would a moderator kindly delete this for me?

EDIT: oh wait, yes I can...

 

Yes, depending on price, fuel economy, and diesel fuel prices.

 

 

I hope they maintain the pricing and add the diesel as an "option", or only increase it by $1k.

 

I have to say, there is no way a diesel TSX will be considered a sports sedan. But I don't want a hybrid, and IMO an electric car is of no use on a road trip. So yup, sign me up for a diesel. I will be cross-shopping the TSX diesel with the Jetta TDI and whatever other smaller sedans are available with a diesel engine.

 

If they really moved forward on the idea of the diesel shown at the geneva auto show....that would definitely be worth considering.

New grill....more aggressive stance and body kit.....it just looks better.

I can't honestly say right now if it looks better than our modden 1st gens, but it definitely doesn't look bad.

 

It looks like it will be a turbo diesel which I would be more than happy to buy since I am on the verge of off loading the 05 TSX I have now for something else.

 

OH yeah!! Just think of all that torque goodness. I don't speed, (much) but I like to get UP TO speed asap. Wonder if the diesel engine weighs more or less?

 

Diesel has similar performance as 5speed auto 2.4L
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tes...ex.htm?id=321&
The secret of making a torque converter automatic work efficiently is a matter of matching gearing and lock-up with the torque characteristics of the engine.
That’s why, according to Project Leader Hiroyuki Ikegami, Honda has been able to achieve better economy figures for its 2.4i petrol engined torque converter autos than for the manuals. Better even than those for a twin-shaft transmission like Mitsubishi’s new SST.

Honda hasn’t yet managed to perfectly match its 5-speed auto to the much narrower and stronger torque band of its new 150PS 2.2 I-DTEC diesel engine. Prototypes are running, though, and once Honda is happy with the CO2, economy and drivability, we’ll see this combination in the UK.

A lot of thought has gone into the new Accord. You notice it in details like the fact the undulating dashtop does not reflect in the screen, the holes in the centre console are deep enough to hold bottles without interfering with your gearshifts, the reversing camera has the clearest, brightest screen display I have ever seen, the satnav controls are simple and intuitive, and the spoken instructions come from a voice that sounds like a combination of Joanna Lumley and Jenny Agutter rather than Miss Whiplash.

We drove the diesel Tourer first, then the 2.0i automatic saloon, then, as a comparison, a rented Mercedes C200CDI Classic, and finally a 2.4i automatic Tourer.

First impressions were of a big, solid car with very little mechanical, wind or road noise. Ikegami San explained much of this comparative silence was due to the flexible rubber mountings of the rear suspension subframe. The car steers more heavily and much more positively than the old Accord. 6th pulls about 35mph for every 1,000rpm. And the engine manages to be both quieter yet more punchy at the same time.

It’s not hard to get to grips with the Adaptive Cruise Control, Collision Mitigation Braking System and Lane Keeping Assist System. When fitted, CMBS comes on with the cruise control and basically stops you crashing into anything in front. It can be switched off, if you want to live a little more dangerously.

LKAS can be brought in by a switch on the steering wheel and uses a camera system to keep the car in the middle of the lane in which you are travelling. First developed on the Legend, it could be left to do all your motorway steering for you, but the lawyers said “no”, so instead it assists you to stay in lane rather than keeping you there by itself.

The perky rump of the Tourer no longer has the old Accord’s famously troublesome self-lifting power tailgate, now standard only on the EX GT. It does have a long, golfer-friendly load area with lots of cubbies underneath, yet, annoyingly, no spare wheel where you would expect to find one (though there is enough space for one). The luggage blind incorporates a dog net that rather fiddlingly clips into slots in the headlining.

And something you notice when you get out to swap drivers is, you have not had to readjust the seats and steering wheel once. It’s a very comfortable car, with plenty of head and legroom for five, including piggy in the middle in the back.

Next, a 156PS 2.0i auto saloon. This steered lot lighter and less reassuringly than the diesel, and felt a bit slow on the uptake as a consequence of the low CO2 automatic transmission mapping. But you can paddle shift it or lock it in Sport and kick down for 6,000rpm upchanges if you want to get a move on. It’s still a fine car, but with a completely different character from the diesel.

After that, Honda bravely offered us a choice of a new Audi A4 B8, new Passat, BMW 3-Series or Mercedes C-Class. I hadn’t actually driven a new C-Class before, so we went for that one.

It turned out to be a very basic spec C200CDI Classic manual, a standard Europcar rent-a-car. Yet had a wonderful taxi-like, hewn from solid feel to it. The kind of car I could honestly imagine clocking up half a million miles. It handled well, too. Yet, for the same sort of money, the Accord is a bigger, more imposing car, almost half way to an E Class.

Lastly, a 201PS 2.4i auto Touring. Like the 2.0i, this steered more like the old Accord, feeling disconcertingly vague at high speed on long motorway sleepers. And, though it was quicker than the 2.0i and revved cleanly to 7,000rpm in kickdown, it didn’t go like it had 201PS, again the consequence of electronic control over the autobox that gives it better economy and lower CO2, but takes 9.3 seconds to reach 60 against the manual’s 7.5.

After the launch, on landing back in the UK, I climbed into the Subaru Legacy Boxer diesel I had driven to the airport, and that, of course, is another competitor to the Accord. Starting from cold, the engine sounded like someone was shaking an old metal bucket of bolts under the bonnet. While the Accord diesel had the refinement of a recent graduate from finishing school the Legacy Boxer felt as if it had just been sent down to borstal. And, of course, the car itself is an older design, let down in details where the new Accord excels.

Buyers in this category are spoiled for choice. The new Audi A4 B8 Avant, the BMW E91 3 Series Touring, the Passat, the new C-Class, the new Mondeo, the new Mazda 6, the new Laguna. The Accord is bigger than any of these except the Mondeo and Mazda 6, and despite those car’s qualities it feels the more solid car. No diesel auto in the launch range will lose a lot of customers it could have stolen from the 3-Series and C Class over the next 9 months. Though Honda would rather get that drivetrain right than put it out less than perfect.

But I reckon anyone who makes the switch from a previous model A4, C-Class or BMW 3-Series will not be disappointed. Nothing about the new Accord irritates. It’s a significant improvement over the old Accord which was already a seriously good car. And it’s a lot better looking, especially the Tourer.

So I predict more conquest sales from Audi, BMW and Mercedes and very little traffic going the other way.


PERFORMANCE, FUEL CONSUMPTION
AND CO2 EMISSIONS
(Figures for saloons; Tourers marginally slower and less economical.)

2.0 i-VETEC Petrol 6-speed manual: 0-60 9.0 seconds; top speed 133mph; combined mpg 39.2; CO2 emissions 170g/km; Emissions Category EU4 (VED 08/09 Band E £170; 09/10 Band H £175). Insurance Group TBA.

2.0 i-VETEC Petrol 5-speed automatic: 0-60 10.4 seconds; top speed 131mph; combined mpg 37.7; CO2 emissions 178g/km; Emissions Category EU4 (VED 08/09 Band E £170; 09/10 Band I £205). Insurance Group TBA.

2.4 i-VETEC Petrol 6-speed manual: 0-60 7.5 seconds; top speed 141mph; combined mpg 32.1; CO2 emissions 209g/km; Emissions Category EU4 (VED 08/09 Band F £210; 09/10 Band K £300). Insurance Group 12E – 13E.

2.4 i-VETEC Petrol 5-speed automatic: 0-60 9.2 seconds; top speed 141mph; combined mpg 32.8; CO2 emissions 204g/km; Emissions Category EU4 (VED 08/09 Band F £210; 09/10 Band K £300). Insurance Group 12E –13E.

2.2 i-DTEC Diesel 6-speed manual: 0-60 9.3 seconds; top speed 131mph; combined mpg 50.4; CO2 emissions 148g/km; Emissions Category EU5 (VED 08/09 Band C £120; 09/10 Band F £120). Insurance Group 12E – 13E

 

They state 9.2 (or is it 9.3?) seconds 0-60 for the 2.4 Auto. That can't be right. Do they get different gearing? I'm not saying the TSX is a speed demon, but it feels quicker than the my 8-8.5 second 0-60 Honda Pilot, and it should be given it's better power to weight ratio. I'm guessing the automatic TSX does 0-60 in around 7.7-8.0 seconds. Also, I've never seen a near 2 second difference in 0-60 times between a modern car equipped with an automatic versus it's manual counterpart. Strange.

 

The EuroAccord's 2.4 Engine doesn't put out as hp and torque as the TSX. It has similar perfomance to the 2.4 Engine of the American Accord.

 

I just looked at the engine specs on http://www.honda.co.uk/newaCCORD/

It turns out the EuroAccord 2.4 has 198 HP and 172 lb ft of torque which is pretty close to the TSX.

Sorry about my misinformed statement.

 

The diesel numbers are 148 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque, BTW

 

I put yes, because I'm enthusiastic about the diesel, but there are a few qualifiers I should note. First of all, the TSX is a fairly evolutionary design and is quite reliable, but I still feel uncomfortable buying the first model year of a new run of cars. Aside from that, I'd like the diesel to meet a few specs -- if it doesn't that won't necessarily rule a diesel TSX out of my list of cars, but it would make me less enthusiastic.

I'd like the diesel to not carry an excessive price tag (it should not be more than a ~$2500 premium). I also hope the diesel puts out more power than the European diesel -- 180 HP and high torque sounds very good to me (150 is alright, but I'd prefer a more powerful diesel). The fuel economy figures should also be noticeably higher than the 2.4L i-VTEC (> 30% better, combined). Finally, they need to get that automatic gear box ready for the diesel by the time it is released in the US. Autos are so heavily the majority now in the US... it'd be a kiss of death.

My decision also depends on distillate fuel (diesel) prices. The price growth of diesel finally slowed last week, and gas shot up more than diesel for the first time in a while. Yet still, gas is 360.3 cents average in the US, while diesel is 417.7 cents on average (~15% higher than regular, ~7% higher than premium). The demand for diesel has risen globally, putting a strain on the US supply due to exports to Europe and relatively low US refinery diesel output. So the real question is what will happen with diesel over the next year + 1/2? If it shoots up even more over gasoline, it'd probably push me away from buying a diesel TSX. I don't expect the diesel price hike to continue much longer, but we shall see.

 

u have to do actual test not just go on feel. Pilot is heavier so it will not feel as faster. 9.2 Seconds seems right as as new TSX/Accord is 3500lbs car with Auto/navigation. there was test of Auto Civic Exi on motortrend. It achieved it at 9.4 seconds. but Civic is only 2700lbs and 128lbs of torque. but once TSX/Accord takes momentum it should be better than SUV/economy car as it have better Cd/horsepower.

 

There is no way a TSX, which has a better power to weight ratio, better aerodynamics, a more taut suspension, and less drivetrain loss than my 4WD EX-L Pilot is actually a second slower to 60. I know it probably feels faster because it's smaller and lower to the ground, but 9.2 seconds just doesn't sound right at all, at least to me. Anybody have times for the 1st-gen (06-08) TSX Auto? The new one should be within .1 - .2 seconds of the 1st-gen.

As for the Civic, the gearing of it's 5-speed auto should be less aggressive which makes a difference. It's programmed for ultimate fuel-economy and not performance, according to a review I found in Motor Trend.

 

The first gen was in the mid 7s if I'm not mistaken. I also read on vtec. net that Jeff got 7.x with his 2nd gen, so something is wrong with that article.

 

Jeff's time was on a 6MT. He said he had a lot of tire spin, so better tires would shave off a few tenths.

 

TSX with torque? Sign me up for a diesel!

 

Pilot has alot more Torque than TSX and Power to weight ratio is pretty comparable. Pilot is close to 245bhp with 4200lb to 4400lbs weight class. in first 60mph drag will not play a big part. upto 100mph may be there is difference.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...omparison_test
But this preconception began to soften the minute we got to the test track. True, the Pilot's superb 240-hp, 3.5-liter SOHC 24-valve V-6 (allied with a very smooth five-speed automatic transmission) delivered respectable acceleration numbers—7.6 seconds to 60 mph, 15.9 seconds at 86 mph in the quarter, almost neck and neck with the Nissan Murano—but it was an also-ran in other dynamic tests. Its skidpad performance at 0.74 g was below average, it was second-slowest in the lane-change maneuver, and at 195 feet, its 70-to-0 stopping distance was the worst in the group

 

I own an AWD 2006 Pilot EX-L which weighs 4524 lbs. and has 244 hp & 240 lb-ft of torque. The Automatic TSX w/ Tech Package weighs 3486 lbs. and has 201 hp & 170 lb-ft of torque. The horsepower to weight ratio for the Pilot is 18.5 lbs. per horsepower. The horsepower to weight ratio for the TSX is 17.3 lbs. per horsepower. As you stated, the Pilot has more torque so it has an advantage in this area. The torque to weight ratio is 18.8 lbs. for the Pilot and 20.5 for the TSX. Factor in the other things I mentioned (less taut suspension, worse coefficient of drag, drivetrain loss due to being AWD, etc.) and I stand my belief that the TSX is not slower than my Pilot.

In any event, I think a better comparison might be the IS250 which when equipped with a 6-speed auto, has a nearly identical power to weight ratio as the Auto TSX w/ Tech and is the same general size. It does 0-60 in 7.9 seconds according to Lexus. I'm sure the 6-speed auto and a tiny torque advantage help a bit, but how much? Even the IS250 AWD which weighs 3651 lbs. does 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. Call me crazy, but 9.2 seconds for the TSX just sounds too slow.

 

my whole family still thinks that diesel sucks for the environment, it stinks, it emits a black smog, and they all don't like it.

 

Look on Colin's site. He has a great write-up on the new low emisions on the new diesel engine they will be using here.

 

Have you told them that the new diesels have to have the same emissions as gasoline cars?

Have they been behind a VW or MB diesel recently? I bet they wouldn't notice it's a diesel car in front of them anyway, because the new ones aren't any different from gasoline cars.

 

Pilot also produce peak power at 5700rpm not at 7100rpm. Combine with extra torque. Pilot should have advantage. i have auto tsx. it does not feel fast. IS250 not only has torque advantage but peak power is at 6400rpm

 

So I'm assuming you think 9.2 seconds is a believable number? Let's just agree to disagree. I've already given my perspective as an owner of both a Pilot and an Outlander. https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42761

Do you happen to have any sources that state the Auto TSX (2006 or newer) does 0-60 in 9+ seconds?

 

British Channel 4 is putting the same 9.2 seconds. with 1493 KG weight. I think TSX is heavier than Accord.
http://www.channel4.com/4car/road-te...ersion_id=6110

 

no, but i did see a Jetta TDI and it was fine.

 

Ok this tester is saying that he will eat his notebook and pencil if 5AT 2.4 Vtec is faster than 2.2 diesel in real world.