TSX69

Bells & Whistles but No Charisma
By Dan Neil, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 30, 2008
» Discuss Article If we accept that there is something interesting about every car, then the 2009 Acura TSX tests this proposition to the breaking point. Is it well made? Are Oprah's diamond earrings real? Of course, it's well made. It's a lux'ed-up, Euro-spec Honda Accord, re-badged as an Acura and aimed at America's young and upwardly mobile petit-bourgeoisie, assuming we have any left.

Is it well equipped? Like a Chippendales show. Acura has always employed the irresistible logic of more is better. The TSX (starting at $28,960) comes standard with a big, beautiful navigation system, heated leather seats, a moonroof and plenty of other upmarket swirlies. Acura simply refuses to yield the value equation. If one of its competitors offered a device to allow telepathic communication with small rodents, you can be sure that the TSX would offer Acura's HamsterLink technology, and it would come standard with the nav system.

Is it attractive? I think the word is clinical. Rarely do you see a design that is so obviously driven by the marketers' metaphorical imperatives -- high-tech but not alienating, sleek but safe, and precisely 23.88% richer and more upmarket than the Accord. Thus the curious polished metal orthodontia in the grille. This thing has a front toof like Ollie.

Does it drive well? Absolutely. If you are benchmarking front-wheel-drive, 3,419-pound sedans with 201-hp four-cylinder engines, it drives beautifully. A deep serenity presides over the ride quality, abetted by barbiturate-like quiet and cabin isolation. Push the car a little harder into turns and, yes, you'll wish you had more steering feel -- or some -- and you'll eventually invoke the disapproval of the stability control system. But the TSX has its shoes laced up tight. Lots of traction, plenty of agility and a willingness to do as it's told that borders on slavishness.

But is the TSX interesting, compelling or unforgettable in some emotional way? Will it wake you out of a dead sleep with asphalt-gnawing desire? Will you lie and embezzle or pimp out your dog to get one? Probably not.

It's an excellent car and well worth the money. But when it comes to charisma, compared to the likes of the Mercedes-Benz C300, the Audi A4, the BMW 328i, the Acura surrenders like Lee at Appomattox.

We're left to puzzle the exact nature of charisma. One issue is the precision-caliper badge. Acura has gotten thoroughly shuffled out of the prestige ranks lately. A recent brand perception survey by Consumer Reports ranks Acura at the bottom of the list. Here's the strange part. Honda ranked at the top, even though they're the same company.

Usually, I dismiss big M Marketing as the lowest form of automotive expertise, the department of any company where people put their half-wit brothers-in-law and work-release types. But Acura must do better in getting the message out. The RDX -- the compact luxury crossover -- is the best product in its segment. The RL is an astonishing automobile. Who's being paid to promote these products? These people should be shamed like Japanese companies used to shame their employees: They should be made to stand in front of their building in their underwear shouting abject apologies and self-recrimination while being berated by their superiors. The good old days.

Have you seen Honda's new brand image commercial, the one with all the company's products: jets, snowmobiles, outboard motors, ATVs, fuel-cell vehicles, even a knock-kneed robot named Asimo? Where is Acura? Surely if you promote your private-jet business, you can promote your luxury car division.

Well, I started out saying there was nothing that interesting about the TSX. Not true. Honda-Acura did something very bold with this car and that was not to gratuitously add displacement and horsepower in the redesign. Acura is, I think, the first luxury brand to step off the horsepower spiral and say "enough." What's under the hood is a stupendously fine 2.4-liter, high-compression four-cylinder producing 201 horsepower (what the previous model achieved with slightly more midrange torque). That's a specific output of 83.75 hp per liter, getting very close to the magic 100/liter mark, while still achieving up to 30 miles per gallon on the highway (with an automatic transmission).

But, regarding charisma: From the first spin around the block, the TSX feels a bit like a luxury car wrapped around an economy car powertrain. The car is certainly quick -- around 6.5 seconds to 60 mph -- but you really have to wring the tachometer to get it moving, which produces some rather inelegant, blender-like sounds from the four-cylinder engine (peak horsepower at 7,000 rpm). Fine for a Civic, OK for an Accord, but lacking in that gratifying quality of effortlessness that luxury cars have, even entry-luxury cars.

This is a common rap against Acura, which does not have a V8-powered car in the lineup, nor does it have a proper rear-drive powertrain. But soon -- and not a bit too soon -- the company will have other options, including high-output diesels. I predict the TSX will be transformed by a torque-y, super-clean diesel.

Now that will be interesting.

dan.neil@latimes.com

2009 Acura TSX
Base price: $28,960

Price, as tested: $35,494

Powertrain: 2.4-liter DOHC four-cylinder with variable-valve timing; six-speed manual transmission; front-wheel drive

Horsepower: 201 at 7,000 rpm

Torque: 170 pound-feet at 4,300 rpm

Curb weight: 3,419 pounds

0-60 mph: 6.5 seconds

Wheelbase: 106.5 inches

Overall length: 185.6 inches

EPA fuel economy: 20 miles per gallon city, 28 mpg highway

Final thoughts: TSX, pronounced "tsk, tsk"

LuvMyTSX

Isn't this the 2nd review to state that navigation is standard?? WTF.

LuvMyTSX

IMO this was a really stupid review, if you can even call it that. They hardly talked at all about the actual car. Basically they bitched about Acura not being as prestigious as BMW, Audi, and MB. Big whoop. Tell us something we don't know already.

jwaters943

Being a writer with the L.A. times, he's simply focusing on what most Angelinos are concerned with......IMAGE.

frescagod

lol, 6.5 seconds 0-60, that's got to be a mistake, right? the best i could do when i still owned my 2005 was around 7.5 seconds, give or take a tick. the 2009 has a very small advantage in torque that is really slashed with the increase in size and weight, though. i could probably do 6.5 seconds if we were going...20-60mph...

dom

While I'll likely agree with most of that review if I test drove one. Take that review for what its worth. A big steaming pile of dog And we should take most newspaper reviews.

123456SPEED

I liked the review.
loved the description of the grill as orthodontia, 'front toof like Ollie'.
and the hamsterlink.

SpicyMikey

Here's the link

http://www.latimes.com/classified/au...tory?track=rss

Celtic FC

I take it as meaning standard for that trim level. Probably, Acura lists it as standard equipment, don't remember.

LuvMyTSX

That's not how I take it. When the writer says the car starts at $28k and comes standard with navigation, it sounds pretty clear that they mean that at $28k, you get a navigation system, which isn't true. I've seen it clearly stated that with the tech package, you get navigation. People are just dumb.

davidspalding

I call on any review that gets a very basic fact wrong (states starting price base, then calls "standard" a nav system that's in the one optional trim line ... can't this punter count?). I didn't even read past that. I lived in LA for 2 years and endured a lot of dunsel writers who are more intent on being clever in print than being accurate. Just count up all the similes this writer flings at you ... case closed.


Besides, my 2006 comes with HabiTraiLink already, that's no big deal.

LuvMyTSX

@ HabiTraiLink

hans007

i used to live in LA and honestly the TSX might actually be the perfect car for LA if it looked a little nicer (i.e. lose the grill).

I figure acura knows it is not the car that is "bling". i always thought the market for the TSX was the person that doesnt want to be "too flashy" in a bimmer or mercedes, but wants to drive something slightly more upscale than say an accord or camry.

that said, those were the actual reasons i bought my TSX (well i traded a g35 coupe for it). the TSX got something like 7mpg more in real world driving and the fact that it was no where near as fast or handled as well DIDNT MATTER at all because there is so much traffic in LA during most day time driving that you really could care less. It was just sporty enough to be fun, and at the time I bought it acura only made about 15000 a year so it was also somewhat "different". Being the LA times and understanding most LA people that and how nice the car looks are actually really important. For most other cities its not quite as important.

that said, this review pretty much is terrible. i mean maybe the car he tested had v6 secretly put in it, because assuming he drove the manual (which is what is in the specs) , there is a huge difference between 6.5 seconds to 60 and 8.0 seconds or so that he probably was getting (i'm assuming most reviewers from the LA times woudl not completely trash the car to get the fastest possible time). then again he probably did not actually test the acceleration.

davidspalding

"It is equipped? Like a Chippendales show."

I think that says it all about the reviewer. :ghey:


Kidding, of course.

SpicyMikey

When he went off on that tangent about the flaws in Acura's marketing, I had to laugh. So true.