Impact of 2010 TSX V6 on the TL
06-05-2009, 09:39 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 48
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impact of 2010 TSX V6 on the TL
Interesting rumor from TOV:
2010 TSX (2.4L 5AT/6MT) - $29,310*
2010 TSX Tech (2.4L 5AT/6MT) - $32,410*
2010 TSX V6 (3.5L 5AT) - $34,850*
2010 TSX V6 Tech (3.5L 5AT) - $37,950*
The <1K difference between the TSX V6 and FWD TL is a bit surprising. I wonder if 2010 TL content will be increased a bit to increase price and differentiate itself from the TSX.
Thoughts?
2010 TSX (2.4L 5AT/6MT) - $29,310*
2010 TSX Tech (2.4L 5AT/6MT) - $32,410*
2010 TSX V6 (3.5L 5AT) - $34,850*
2010 TSX V6 Tech (3.5L 5AT) - $37,950*
The <1K difference between the TSX V6 and FWD TL is a bit surprising. I wonder if 2010 TL content will be increased a bit to increase price and differentiate itself from the TSX.
Thoughts?
06-05-2009, 09:58 PM
#2
My beer fridge is in
Well the TL is still bigger in the cabin. Also, i don't believe the TSX has all the same tech stuff as the TL has (weather, HDD, great sounding stereo). But i could be wrong.
06-05-2009, 10:39 PM
#4
acura doesn't care - sales is sales the new txs can take the sales lead from the 3G TL and the new TL sales will be in greater #s than the RL
06-06-2009, 01:37 AM
#5
Edmunds may have tested it as Roadtest editor posted. He even commented TL is irrelevant.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2009/0...acura-tsx.html
Tweets on Cars: The 2010 Acura TSX...
The 2010 Acura TSX with V6 is good. Actually it's very good. The torquey (yet without torque-steer) V6 is just what the car needed.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2009/0...acura-tsx.html
Tweets on Cars: The 2010 Acura TSX...
The 2010 Acura TSX with V6 is good. Actually it's very good. The torquey (yet without torque-steer) V6 is just what the car needed.
06-06-2009, 07:05 AM
#7
Three Wheelin'
Edmunds may have tested it as Roadtest editor posted. He even commented TL is irrelevant.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2009/0...acura-tsx.html
Tweets on Cars: The 2010 Acura TSX...
The 2010 Acura TSX with V6 is good. Actually it's very good. The torquey (yet without torque-steer) V6 is just what the car needed.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2009/0...acura-tsx.html
Tweets on Cars: The 2010 Acura TSX...
The 2010 Acura TSX with V6 is good. Actually it's very good. The torquey (yet without torque-steer) V6 is just what the car needed.
I find your comments to be irrelevant.
So what else do you in life besides coming here and continually bash the TL?
Trending Topics
06-06-2009, 08:16 AM
#8
06-06-2009, 09:08 AM
#9
Three Wheelin'
We current TSX owners are discussing the TSX V6 pricing and instead of rehashing my words here, you can just check them out:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...700260&page=34
Synopsis: I think the pricing is a really dumb move by Acura and I can't see it selling that well, especially with gas prices on the rise again. If I am going to spend that much $, I would just look at a TL and I would skip the TSX V6 altogether.
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...700260&page=34
Synopsis: I think the pricing is a really dumb move by Acura and I can't see it selling that well, especially with gas prices on the rise again. If I am going to spend that much $, I would just look at a TL and I would skip the TSX V6 altogether.
06-06-2009, 10:44 AM
#10
I feel strongly both ways
We current TSX owners are discussing the TSX V6 pricing and instead of rehashing my words here, you can just check them out:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...700260&page=34
Synopsis: I think the pricing is a really dumb move by Acura and I can't see it selling that well, especially with gas prices on the rise again. If I am going to spend that much $, I would just look at a TL and I would skip the TSX V6 altogether.
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...700260&page=34
Synopsis: I think the pricing is a really dumb move by Acura and I can't see it selling that well, especially with gas prices on the rise again. If I am going to spend that much $, I would just look at a TL and I would skip the TSX V6 altogether.
What Acura need to spice up its offerings is a sexy, sleek coupe version of the TL (think A5 here).
06-06-2009, 01:47 PM
#11
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
It's almost as though Acura doesn't want people to buy the TSX V6. It's made simply to satisfy people who have always wanted to see a V6 TSX. Honda, "V6 TSX? Sure, here you go, but I will make it about the same price as the TL. Hey, it's a V6 TSX, isn't this what you people have been wishing for?"
06-06-2009, 05:47 PM
#12
It really isn't all that much if you consider it a 3G TL carryover. It is also the only way to get the TSX and the TL to be competing in their appropriate segments, and price comes with the territory. If you look at the TL and TSX based on what they were, you will be disappointed by the price, but if you look at the actual car instead of the model name, you will see the TSX has become the TL we have come to know and the TL the RL, in essence. This is a good move for the brand, it's necessary part of the transition and will have buyers of each now cross shopping more within the brand instead of outside. If you like the last TL and don't care for the direction it has now taken, then there is the TSX V6, and if you prefer the original ways of the TSX, they have the 4 cyl. and a 6MT, once you consider the price of the V6, now the TL also becomes an option.
06-06-2009, 06:09 PM
#13
Racer
I guarantee you that the 2010 TSX tech will actually sell for $35K. People won't touch that car if its more than that. I'm not in the market for a new Acura yet as my 04 TL still runs and looks like new, but if I was, I'd absolutely buy a V6 TSX. Acuras are getting pricey in general considering the lousy economy were in. That was one of my last comments to the Acura rep. right before I stopped working at the Acura dealership in Maple Shade NJ. And with over 100K miles of seat time in TL's, I think I can handle a little torque steer.
06-06-2009, 07:08 PM
#14
Honda Fanboy
Edmunds may have tested it as Roadtest editor posted. He even commented TL is irrelevant.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2009/0...acura-tsx.html
Tweets on Cars: The 2010 Acura TSX...
The 2010 Acura TSX with V6 is good. Actually it's very good. The torquey (yet without torque-steer) V6 is just what the car needed.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/2009/0...acura-tsx.html
Tweets on Cars: The 2010 Acura TSX...
The 2010 Acura TSX with V6 is good. Actually it's very good. The torquey (yet without torque-steer) V6 is just what the car needed.
06-06-2009, 09:17 PM
#15
I guarantee you that the 2010 TSX tech will actually sell for $35K. People won't touch that car if its more than that. I'm not in the market for a new Acura yet as my 04 TL still runs and looks like new, but if I was, I'd absolutely buy a V6 TSX. Acuras are getting pricey in general considering the lousy economy were in. That was one of my last comments to the Acura rep. right before I stopped working at the Acura dealership in Maple Shade NJ. And with over 100K miles of seat time in TL's, I think I can handle a little torque steer.
06-07-2009, 11:34 AM
#16
Three Wheelin'
It really isn't all that much if you consider it a 3G TL carryover. It is also the only way to get the TSX and the TL to be competing in their appropriate segments, and price comes with the territory. If you look at the TL and TSX based on what they were, you will be disappointed by the price, but if you look at the actual car instead of the model name, you will see the TSX has become the TL we have come to know and the TL the RL, in essence. This is a good move for the brand, it's necessary part of the transition and will have buyers of each now cross shopping more within the brand instead of outside. If you like the last TL and don't care for the direction it has now taken, then there is the TSX V6, and if you prefer the original ways of the TSX, they have the 4 cyl. and a 6MT, once you consider the price of the V6, now the TL also becomes an option.
Here's another review I found very interesting:
The Bottom Line
When Acura launched the new TSX last year, many speculated that there would be two optional engines–and both of them would be four-cylinder. The 2.3-liter, 240 hp turbocharged four-cylinder from the RDX seemed like one powerplant Acura would choose. However Acura's Watts mentioned to us that not only did this engine not fit into the bay of the TSX without serious modification, but its fuel economy hasn't been as good as the company had hoped and wouldn't deliver the consumption consumers would expect in sedan like the TSX.
Speaking of fuel consumption, Acura had announced that it would include a diesel option in its lineup soon. And since the European Accord comes with a diesel option, the plan was to use the 148 hp 2.2-liter i-DTEC diesel in the TSX too. With consumer demand for diesel in state of flux due to fluctuating fuel prices and the still-nagging perception among US buyers that diesels are either dirty or noisy, Acura has decided to wait. However, Watts eluded to the fact that if the company perceived a stable demand, a diesel TSX could move into the product plan relatively quickly.
The 2010 Acura TSX four-cylinder starts at $30,120 and the V6 model begins at $35,660. That extra five grand is no small sum in this economy. But the larger, smoother engine does make the TSX a more compelling sport sedan. And even at its fully loaded $38,760 price point, the V6 model still undercuts many of its competitors. Now if we could only get that diesel option too.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4320512.html
06-07-2009, 04:18 PM
#18
It can't be cheaper, they can't afford to undermine the base TL just yet, it's a win win for Acura. It might just be a little much, but maybe that is the point, limited production V6 wont hurt and in return help sell more base TL's, it is now the better buy, but they wont lose either way. I didn't imply that the TSX is now the leader of it's competitors, only that it is now starting to show some distinction in it's sedan lineup and it doesn't need to match the drivetrain and features and outputs to compete, that would only make the car even more expensive and everyone would just be complaining worse than they are now. The 3G competed very well and the TSX is now the same thing. Part of the pricing is marketing and proper segment placing, I highly doubt they will actually sell for that much. If you look at what the rest charge for similar premium or near luxury FWD V6 sport sedans, than the price is very reasonable.
06-07-2009, 04:22 PM
#19
Some people still place a premium on Japan production and of course this also contributes to the cost/value ratio. There was a reason they moved TL to the US in 1999. I hope everyone remembers that they need to ship the engine from Ohio to Saitama and then send the whole thing back again.
06-07-2009, 05:41 PM
#20
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 48
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people still place a premium on Japan production and of course this also contributes to the cost/value ratio. There was a reason they moved TL to the US in 1999. I hope everyone remembers that they need to ship the engine from Ohio to Saitama and then send the whole thing back again.
Actually I was more curious on thoughts of changes for the 2010 TL to distinguish itself from the TSX due to the pricing.
06-08-2009, 12:15 AM
#21
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting rumor from TOV:
2010 TSX (2.4L 5AT/6MT) - $29,310*
2010 TSX Tech (2.4L 5AT/6MT) - $32,410*
2010 TSX V6 (3.5L 5AT) - $34,850*
2010 TSX V6 Tech (3.5L 5AT) - $37,950*
The <1K difference between the TSX V6 and FWD TL is a bit surprising. I wonder if 2010 TL content will be increased a bit to increase price and differentiate itself from the TSX.
Thoughts?
2010 TSX (2.4L 5AT/6MT) - $29,310*
2010 TSX Tech (2.4L 5AT/6MT) - $32,410*
2010 TSX V6 (3.5L 5AT) - $34,850*
2010 TSX V6 Tech (3.5L 5AT) - $37,950*
The <1K difference between the TSX V6 and FWD TL is a bit surprising. I wonder if 2010 TL content will be increased a bit to increase price and differentiate itself from the TSX.
Thoughts?
06-08-2009, 08:32 AM
#22
some early numbers are in. 0-60 5.9 second from MotorTrend. quarter mile at 98mph.
Pretty respectable for 18inch all season tires compared to 17inch TL/ES. Maxima has performance tires. It will be interesting to see what happens after 100mph.
I am sure C&D can beat this number.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...v_6/index.html
Not only is the auto's manual mode responsive, smooth, and relatively quick, it also helps scoot the TSX down the dragstrip with alarming alacrity. Zero to 60? How about 5.9 seconds. Quarter mile? Try 14.5 at 97.8 mph. Neither the 290-hp Nissan Maxima 3.5 SV (6.0, 14.5 at 99.0) nor the 272-hp Lexus ES 350 (6.5, 14.9 at 96.0) is quicker. Ditto for the front-drive TL (6.2, 14.6 at 96.9) as well as the 305-horse TL SH-AWD (6.5, 14.8 at 96.9). And the four-cylinder TSX? As I mentioned earlier, the standard I-4 is no dog of an engine -- 0 to 60 in a respectable 7.0 flat and the quarter mile in 15.3 at 92.6 when paired with the six-speed manual -- but it's obvious why Acura chose to add the 3.5 to the lineup. It's over a second quicker to 60, and it puts Acura in a more competitive position against such foes as the ES, Maxima, and freshened Lincoln MKZ.
Pretty respectable for 18inch all season tires compared to 17inch TL/ES. Maxima has performance tires. It will be interesting to see what happens after 100mph.
I am sure C&D can beat this number.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...v_6/index.html
Not only is the auto's manual mode responsive, smooth, and relatively quick, it also helps scoot the TSX down the dragstrip with alarming alacrity. Zero to 60? How about 5.9 seconds. Quarter mile? Try 14.5 at 97.8 mph. Neither the 290-hp Nissan Maxima 3.5 SV (6.0, 14.5 at 99.0) nor the 272-hp Lexus ES 350 (6.5, 14.9 at 96.0) is quicker. Ditto for the front-drive TL (6.2, 14.6 at 96.9) as well as the 305-horse TL SH-AWD (6.5, 14.8 at 96.9). And the four-cylinder TSX? As I mentioned earlier, the standard I-4 is no dog of an engine -- 0 to 60 in a respectable 7.0 flat and the quarter mile in 15.3 at 92.6 when paired with the six-speed manual -- but it's obvious why Acura chose to add the 3.5 to the lineup. It's over a second quicker to 60, and it puts Acura in a more competitive position against such foes as the ES, Maxima, and freshened Lincoln MKZ.
06-08-2009, 09:11 AM
#23
Three Wheelin'
some early numbers are in. 0-60 5.9 second from MotorTrend. quarter mile at 98mph.
Pretty respectable for 18inch all season tires compared to 17inch TL/ES. Maxima has performance tires. It will be interesting to see what happens after 100mph.
I am sure C&D can beat this number.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...v_6/index.html
Not only is the auto's manual mode responsive, smooth, and relatively quick, it also helps scoot the TSX down the dragstrip with alarming alacrity. Zero to 60? How about 5.9 seconds. Quarter mile? Try 14.5 at 97.8 mph. Neither the 290-hp Nissan Maxima 3.5 SV (6.0, 14.5 at 99.0) nor the 272-hp Lexus ES 350 (6.5, 14.9 at 96.0) is quicker. Ditto for the front-drive TL (6.2, 14.6 at 96.9) as well as the 305-horse TL SH-AWD (6.5, 14.8 at 96.9). And the four-cylinder TSX? As I mentioned earlier, the standard I-4 is no dog of an engine -- 0 to 60 in a respectable 7.0 flat and the quarter mile in 15.3 at 92.6 when paired with the six-speed manual -- but it's obvious why Acura chose to add the 3.5 to the lineup. It's over a second quicker to 60, and it puts Acura in a more competitive position against such foes as the ES, Maxima, and freshened Lincoln MKZ.
Pretty respectable for 18inch all season tires compared to 17inch TL/ES. Maxima has performance tires. It will be interesting to see what happens after 100mph.
I am sure C&D can beat this number.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...v_6/index.html
Not only is the auto's manual mode responsive, smooth, and relatively quick, it also helps scoot the TSX down the dragstrip with alarming alacrity. Zero to 60? How about 5.9 seconds. Quarter mile? Try 14.5 at 97.8 mph. Neither the 290-hp Nissan Maxima 3.5 SV (6.0, 14.5 at 99.0) nor the 272-hp Lexus ES 350 (6.5, 14.9 at 96.0) is quicker. Ditto for the front-drive TL (6.2, 14.6 at 96.9) as well as the 305-horse TL SH-AWD (6.5, 14.8 at 96.9). And the four-cylinder TSX? As I mentioned earlier, the standard I-4 is no dog of an engine -- 0 to 60 in a respectable 7.0 flat and the quarter mile in 15.3 at 92.6 when paired with the six-speed manual -- but it's obvious why Acura chose to add the 3.5 to the lineup. It's over a second quicker to 60, and it puts Acura in a more competitive position against such foes as the ES, Maxima, and freshened Lincoln MKZ.
C&D got 5.9s for the SH-AWD TL in its latest comparo, so those numbers aren't all that impressive. If it had a manual, I'm sure the numbers would be much better. I wonder what the handling numbers are with the added weight? Bottom line is, if the TSX V6 Tech can't be sold for under $35K, then to me, the car just isn't worth it (esp. in light of the fact that the SH-AWD TL Tech can be bought now for just $2K-3K more).
06-08-2009, 10:10 AM
#24
C&D got 5.9s for the SH-AWD TL in its latest comparo, so those numbers aren't all that impressive. If it had a manual, I'm sure the numbers would be much better. I wonder what the handling numbers are with the added weight? Bottom line is, if the TSX V6 Tech can't be sold for under $35K, then to me, the car just isn't worth it (esp. in light of the fact that the SH-AWD TL Tech can be bought now for just $2K-3K more).
06-08-2009, 10:35 AM
#25
Car Enthusiast
It's almost as though Acura doesn't want people to buy the TSX V6. It's made simply to satisfy people who have always wanted to see a V6 TSX. Honda, "V6 TSX? Sure, here you go, but I will make it about the same price as the TL. Hey, it's a V6 TSX, isn't this what you people have been wishing for?"
06-08-2009, 02:09 PM
#28
Three Wheelin'
I am agree with you about ppl. So hard to please them. Keep asking why TSX don't come out with the V6 and now it comes and then complain on the price. I think people are wishing for a car that comes with all the hi-techs, out performs the other brands on the same level or higher, head turner and better yet with a price under $30K.
06-08-2009, 03:03 PM
#29
Chloe @ 17mo
I don't know why Acura couldn't have just bolted on the Turbo-4 setup from the RDX, retune it to reduce lag and boost power, then make it a Type-S model. IMO, this would have created a better performer for the TSX line, keeping it somewhat lightweight, as well as increasing the sporty image of the overall Acura brand, along with furthering the differentiation between the TL and TSX, instead of blurring the line even further.
The Acura brand would then have the TSX be I-4 centric, TL would be V6 powered with AWD option, and the future 4G RL would be V8 powered (and AWD only?). How awesome (and easy) would that have been?
The Acura brand would then have the TSX be I-4 centric, TL would be V6 powered with AWD option, and the future 4G RL would be V8 powered (and AWD only?). How awesome (and easy) would that have been?
Last edited by AsianRage; 06-08-2009 at 03:06 PM.
06-08-2009, 05:36 PM
#31
Three Wheelin'
I don't know why Acura couldn't have just bolted on the Turbo-4 setup from the RDX, retune it to reduce lag and boost power, then make it a Type-S model. IMO, this would have created a better performer for the TSX line, keeping it somewhat lightweight, as well as increasing the sporty image of the overall Acura brand, along with furthering the differentiation between the TL and TSX, instead of blurring the line even further.
The Acura brand would then have the TSX be I-4 centric, TL would be V6 powered with AWD option, and the future 4G RL would be V8 powered (and AWD only?). How awesome (and easy) would that have been?
The Acura brand would then have the TSX be I-4 centric, TL would be V6 powered with AWD option, and the future 4G RL would be V8 powered (and AWD only?). How awesome (and easy) would that have been?
06-08-2009, 06:23 PM
#32
Racer
I don't think that the V6 TSX will have a big impact on the TL, because it will be in limited production. Unless there is a guge demand the car, Acura won't produce a ton of them. This car is simply for those who wished that the TSX had a V6 engine, which it should've had from the beginning anyway. Yes, the car is overpriced, but they probably did that knowing it would be discounted heavily, so the dealerships can make some money. If anything, the impact of the TSX V6 will HELP the TL, because many consumers will just say "Shit, for that price I can get a fully loaded TL". 
06-08-2009, 08:47 PM
#33
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
You guys are too sensitive. The Edmunds Reviewer/Editor/Blogger said it was irrelevant, not the AcuraZine poster.
Uhhm, kinda, but not really. Regular Joe asked, Editor said yes:
By roar02ram on June 5, 2009 4:01 PM
Good enough to render the TL irrelevant?
By editor_karl on June 5, 2009 9:43 PM
Yes, exactly.
Good enough to render the TL irrelevant?
By editor_karl on June 5, 2009 9:43 PM
Yes, exactly.
06-08-2009, 08:56 PM
#34
Suzuka Master
100% agree. I also think Acura's pricing structure has turned the TSX V6 into a niche car. The vast majority of people who buy TSX's are women and young adults who don't put performance at the top of their priority list.....they are drawn to the TSX because of it's style, fuel economy, and most of all, affordability......a $36K+ TSX makes no sense at all.
06-08-2009, 09:06 PM
#36
AZ Community Team
Join Date: May 2007
Location: N35°03'16.75", W 080°51'0.9"
Posts: 32,488
Received 7,771 Likes
on
4,342 Posts
Sounds to me like the new V6 TSX (3.5L) is the old TL.
06-08-2009, 09:32 PM
#37
Three Wheelin'
A 3600+ lb car (TSX V6) would hardly be called "nimble".....the IS' RWD platform, to me, would be more fun to drive. (The IS also offers AWD, which the TSX lacks).
06-08-2009, 10:03 PM
#38
100% agree. I also think Acura's pricing structure has turned the TSX V6 into a niche car. The vast majority of people who buy TSX's are women and young adults who don't put performance at the top of their priority list.....they are drawn to the TSX because of it's style, fuel economy, and most of all, affordability......a $36K+ TSX makes no sense at all.
What wrong with Acura pricing? what you expect beside from Made in Japan Car for 2010. what was MSRP of 2008 TL-Type S.?
Look at number 2008 TL Type S 6MT on 17inch rubber is only 5.7sec/14.sec.
TSX automatic which is alittle heavier car on 18inch all season rubber is 5.9/14.5 second. basically you are getting same performance with Auto transmission as 6MT TL Type S on 17 inch tires.
http://forums.motortrend.com/70/7268...-is/index.html
But when it comes to acceleration, power is the name of the game, and the lack of it hurt the Type-S at the test track. It ranked last to 60 mph and through the quarter mile (5.7 and 14.3 sec., respectively).
“This V-6 is very nice, despite having the least amount of power of the three. The power delivery is smooth, and the VTEC makes this thing a hoot when you get on it,” Elfalan said.
Usually the label “front-wheel drive” equates to a negative in sporty-car comparison tests in Road & Track, but that’s hardly the case here. Drive the Acura at about 7/10ths and you’ll hardly realize that the front tires are providing the thrust. The overall handling balance is surprisingly neutral with understeer noticeable only through tight corners.
Torque steer is present when mashing the throttle pedal coming out of turns, but it’s so slight, it’s hardly an issue. Turn-in response is crisp and body roll is minimal. Credit here goes to the Acura’s rigid body, quick steering response, tuned suspension system — upper and lower A-arms up front and a multilink setup at the rear — and a helical gear-type limited-slip diff that’s standard fare on 6-speed manual transmission models. Around the 200-ft. skidpad, the Type-S outperforms many rear-drive cars, including the two here, posting 0.91g. It ran through the slalom at 66.0 mph, giving it 2nd-place honors.
But when it comes to acceleration, power is the name of the game, and the lack of it hurt the Type-S at the test track. It ranked last to 60 mph and through the quarter mile (5.7 and 14.3 sec., respectively).
“This V-6 is very nice, despite having the least amount of power of the three. The power delivery is smooth, and the VTEC makes this thing a hoot when you get on it,” Elfalan said.
Usually the label “front-wheel drive” equates to a negative in sporty-car comparison tests in Road & Track, but that’s hardly the case here. Drive the Acura at about 7/10ths and you’ll hardly realize that the front tires are providing the thrust. The overall handling balance is surprisingly neutral with understeer noticeable only through tight corners.
Torque steer is present when mashing the throttle pedal coming out of turns, but it’s so slight, it’s hardly an issue. Turn-in response is crisp and body roll is minimal. Credit here goes to the Acura’s rigid body, quick steering response, tuned suspension system — upper and lower A-arms up front and a multilink setup at the rear — and a helical gear-type limited-slip diff that’s standard fare on 6-speed manual transmission models. Around the 200-ft. skidpad, the Type-S outperforms many rear-drive cars, including the two here, posting 0.91g. It ran through the slalom at 66.0 mph, giving it 2nd-place honors.
06-08-2009, 10:21 PM
#40
higher income Males will not buy TSX. Women usually prefer cars that are more reliable/lower maintianance and not oversize.
It will be interesting any women even consider 4G TL. I haven see TSX driven by women but i havent sen a single 4g TL driven by a women.
It will be interesting any women even consider 4G TL. I haven see TSX driven by women but i havent sen a single 4g TL driven by a women.