DeJesus

With all due respect to this post, I don't know if it's a dealer, before anyone buys the 2.0 auto, I recommend they do on purpose what I just happened to do. Try to accelerate up an incline. I was traveling about 35 mph when I really asked the car to accelerate uphill. RPM's nearly went to redline, the car revved like the engine was going to fall out and the car creeped up from 35 mph to 45 mph over a seemingly endless period as my long entrance lane was rapidly running out. If this car could only be driven down hill, it would be fine. The Accord took this same entrance lane with a strong steady power band. The difference was insane tested a couple of hours apart.

cls1000

Its subjective, that's right. In my case, while driving my TSX/auto, I always accelerate slow enough to keep my RPM's under 2500-3000. Needless to say, that's VERY slow. But, that's the only way I can achieve around 20mpg in the city. If I drive normally, its 18-19. That sucks. So the way I see it, I can drive the ILX much quicker while getting better fuel economy. Its win-win. Now, out on the highway, my TSX will get 35 @ 70mph, which is pretty good. I've got as high as 38 keeping it around 50mph. But the city mileage of this car is atrocious. That's why I kind of like the idea of the 2.0 vs. the 2.4. Its not as quick, no. But, 99.99999999999% of the time, I'm not racing anyone, so the lack of power vs. the improved fuel economy is worth the trade off.

gonzo08452

why is that? I've noticed that as well on our TSX. Why the HUGE discrepancy between city vs hwy? I drive my 325i the same way and I get 24city and 31hwy. Never hit the teens the BMW.

Type34

33K

For now, interestingly enough, a base auto ILX is more expensive to lease than a base auto TSX. Low mileage Acura leases (excl taxes, lic, fees):

2012 TSX: $299/mo for 36 months, $1999 down
2013 ILX: :$259/mo for 39 months, $2999 down

Let's sum it up: absorbing the down, the TSX is $354.53/mo for 36 months, which is $12763.08. The ILX is $335.90 for 39 months, which is $13100.10.

Total costs (excluding taxes & fees,) are $12,763.08 for the TSX and $13,100.10 for the ILX.

I'm sure the ILX lease will drop once the availability increases, but it will be interesting to see how much...

ChairmanKaga809

At first I thought this car was crazy. 150hp, $30+k for all the goodies you would want?

But then, what is its closest competition? People mention a fully loaded accord V6....thing is it doesn't have the "brand cache" Acura has. Sure, that's just all customer perception, but in the real world, Acura does have some (perhaps not in leagues with Infiniti, Lexus, or german makes) but it does have some.

So those that are looking for an inexpensive, nice daily driver with good amenties (which may be fun to throw around with the 6sp and some suspension work) this may fit the bill.

Buyers that are looking for a performance oriented car shouldn't be looking at this car in the first place.

gonzo08452

^^is the G25 considered as a competitor?

EzeE1o

I think a g25 is a tsx 4cy competitor

SSFTSX

TSX is 3500lb car with 225/50 size tires and have very low torque of 170ft-lbs.
That car is EuroAccord so its structure is foremost designed around diesel engine that produce plenty of low end torque. Unlike BMW diesels. Honda diesel is heavy and not same output.
TSX aerodynamic efficiency is second to none. despite having only 5speed auto you will have drive it above 85 mph to bring mpg below 30.
i will not buy expensive car if i am driving 90% of time in the city.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

The high lease cost is likely due to a low residual at the moment. Brand new cars tend to have more conservative residuals early on that only get better as the cars value starts to establish itself in the marketplace and depreciation becomes more predictable. The TSX has been on the market and has held its value well, hence the lower lease costs.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I see your point but hey, you do get to drive the ILX for 3 more months (39 vs 36)!

spdandpwr

a longer lease term isn't a positive thing, it means they need to extend the number of months so they can ensure a lower monthly payment over the amortization period.

ESHBG

Yep, my TSX is the same way as well! I could probably get a V6 and achieve the same (hell, if not even slightly better) city MPG numbers.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

For me, I don't mind the extra 3 months....

DMZ

Go to acura.com and try to Build and Price an ILX.
You'll discover you can't get the Technology Package with a 6 speed manual.

WTF ?!?

.
.

cls1000

Probably because its common knowledge and everyone already knows this. The sales numbers didn't support them building such a model.

Colin

With the 6MT take rate hovering around 5%, that is only ~2000 units a year. (5% of 40K annually) This is only 166 units per month and with ~260 Acura dealers, that's less than 1 per dealer per month BEFORE you add any colors.

Adding the Tech as a 2nd manual option is not feasible at this volume. So the only choice would have been to make the manual only Tech or only Premium. Whichever you choose, somebody will have something to complain about (please recall the debates on PND vs. Smart Phone vs. Navi).

spdandpwr

yea, and people complain about the tl only being offered with navi when equipped with a manual. honestly, there's no winning, lol.

Acura_Dude

^

JM2010 SH-AWD

This is an interesting call by Acura, probably driven by the car's price point. On the TL, the 6MT is only available on the AWD with Tech. For the TL, Acura went exactly the opposite direction.

ESHBG

But again you have the same issues, just on the other side of the coin: you are VERY limited with the TL 6MT as well, and you can only get a handful of colors and NO interior color choice.

I get the economics of it all, I really do. However, is it smart for a company to force a consumer's hand, and then be disappointed with the results?!?

Rocket_man

For 5% of their customer base I think the answer is "yes." For such a small minority of buyers they will never be able to satisfy them all. So MT buyers go into it knowing they have to compromise on something if they want the MT. At least they still offer a car with an MT. Someday I think a manual tranny will be even more rare if non existent.

ESHBG

But again, I have to ask would they sell more if they offered the choices? Is "5% of the customer base" accurate when you didn't give the proper choices, because how many buyers skipped the MT to get everything else they wanted? I bet there are more out there than we think.

It just doesn't make sense to me how the new 2013 Accord, both coupe AND *sedan*, are supposedly going to offer an MT...this is a car that, on paper, should have even LESS desire for an MT! Yet Acura's sportier cars won't give you the choice?!? Seems really backwards to me...

Not to mention that the Accord will rock the V6 and a 6 speed tranny (auto or manual), which is one hell of a configuration that you can just barely get on ONE Acura sedan right now...

Colin

If the Accord sells 300,000 a year and the manual take rate is ~5%, you're looking at 15,000 cars a year. If the ILX sells 40,000, 5% is 2000. IMO, there is an economics of scale at work here. Also as Acura works to emphasize 'smart luxury' it seems to be de-emphasizing the performance side slightly.

Now whether they should be de-emphasizing performance is another discussion, but it seems like it's the course they're taking. I get the feeling that they're looking to suggest 'sophisticated' performance like a Grand Touring car vs. hardcore Type-R like product.

Rocket_man

Then it must not have been that important. If you want color over MT then it is not that important. If you want Navi over MT then it wasn't that important. You can't always get what you want. I want ventilated seats but I'm pretty certain they will not come on the TLX. But I'd buy it even if it doesn't have them because it is not that important. I want fold-down rear seats in the TLX. That is a deal breaker for me and I won't buy it without it. If MT is a priority then people will still choose it if they have to compromise on less important things.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Considering the discounts that they are already doing on the TSX and TL to move them off the lots, why not make all MTs an order only option with little to no room to negotiate on price? It seems like if the buyer really wanted to get an MT, they would be willing to wait a bit to get the exact car they want, configured to their specs, and pay a small premium for that benefit. Plus, it would boost profit margin and since it just means substituting the parts on one car of a particular color as it is being produced, it likely does not add all that much cost. Call it the BMW model.

Acura_Dude

Hope not. If im correct im starting to see more models with manual offerings. Buick comes to mind w/ the verano and regal.

Honda/Acura have different demographics as well. You're more than likely to find a used Honda w/ a manual compared to an Acura. People my age and younger tend to want a Honda with a manual. It's more of an enthusiast deal. Teens with their riced out civics/accords that are 5/6 speeds. Now it's almost as easy to find and older integra/RSX with 5/6spd also.



I'd make that sacrifice, especially for an acura. You still get more than you need compared to cars a few thousand cheaper or a class down.

Acura_Dude

I think ILX will be a decent seller overall. Especially when Honda revamps the engine/tranny combo.

BTW has acura started offering the 2013 TSX yet (order form) since you can already get the ILX/RDX? I was wondering because iirc this is around the time next year's model usually start to become "available".

ESHBG

I see your point and again, I get the economics of it all. However, isn't an Accord supposed to be a "vanilla" grocery getter, just get me from A to B, family car? So why would Honda suddenly want to make it a little sportier, and let Acura become more...boring (IMO)? You are right, they do seem to be de-emphasizing performance, and I feel that is sad!

Well then no biggie I guess, we can just go and get exactly what we want from another manufacturer with no compromise if it can't be done with Acura/Honda. And before folks are quick with a, "Well then, good riddance to you!" comeback, I have been a loyal Honda/Acura owner for decades now (for example), and it seems silly to chase away a solid customer...and will there really be one behind me to take my place? Reading these boards loyally over the years, I am not so sure about that with the direction Acura is going and the feelings of long-time customers about said direction...

Colin

On the first point, there are a lot of people who don't view manuals as the sporty option. Many still view them as A) cheaper B) more reliable and C) offering better fuel economy. Not all are true these days, but buyer perceptions are hard to change. For example, many Acura customers are (still) surprised that they can't save money by getting the manual.

On the second point... heh... the very statement of moving manufacturers could already be viewed as a compromise if H/A were the first choice. Not trying to be a jerk about it, but you must see the humor in it ....

ESHBG

True, and I am sure there is still a segment of the population that feels this way, especially amongst the "old-school" crowd.

Ha ha well I am glad you brought this up, and I was actually going to mention this in my previous post: Honda/Acura does not have the reliability advantage it once had, it is getting VERY competitive out there, and even the unreliable manufacturers are making much better cars these days. The game is moving quickly, and Honda/Acura can't afford to rest on its laurels, or be a bit arrogant and assume it still has the big advantage it once had.

Olladriver

As a long time lurker without posting, I appreciate Colin's internal insight and comments. However I think Acura has fueled this low volume problem by chipping away at my choices for purchasing an Acura with a manual transmission.

When the 2nd Gen TSX came out in 2009 I planned on letting Acura work out the kinks (brakes, speakers, rear deck color matching...) typical of a new model and purchase a 2010 with the manual transmission. Unfortunately, I wanted the Taupe interior. Well if you want the manual, you better like Ebony because that is all that we offer it in, and we also are going to restrict you to a select few exterior colors as well. Cash buyer willing and able, but Acura lost my business due to restricting my options.

Fast forward to 2012 . Excited about the ILX, actually fits my needs better (smaller, solo driver 99% of the time, newer Tech features) and I like how it looks. Let's see six speed manual transmission-still offered great, 2.4L even better, Ebony interior only...OK I can handle it, Tech Package Nope, Nada. Deal Breaker!

I want the improved performance of the 2.4L coupled with the driving experience of the six speed manual. Why wouldn't I want the improved sound, larger screen and added benefits of the Tech package. I am willing to spend extra for those features but I am denied the opportunity. Another lost Acura manual transmission sale.

Let's see if I wanted an unimpressive Hybrid ILX I can get the Tech package, but if I am a customer willing to pay extra for a more performance orientated version of the car I wouldn't be willing to spend more to get the ultimate feature package as well. I don't understand Acura's logic on this point.

James Healey of USA Today touched on this point in his review. There is mention that Acura might change their mind, but I am not optimistic.

Chris

CoquiTSX

I want ventilated seats also, I believe one of the TL packages have ventilated seats. Maybe I should start looking @ KIA Optima .

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

This is what intrigues me about Acura's product planning. Rather than providing a truly premium experience, they keep finding ways to compromise themselves into obscurity. The 2.4L, as a sporty option, should definitely be offered with the manual transmission. That motor begs for the MT to be able to access the full performance potential. Incidentally, it also gives the car a solidly premium feel because it is pretty smooth for a 4-cylinder.

But rather than going the next step in offering a proper full sized screen on the dash (a la Infiniti), the better sound system, and maybe memory seats (which I find to be a must have on cars with electric seat adjusters), they decide to saddle this car with a totally mediocre interior design and none of the accoutrements that should be offered on the top spec model. Infiniti figured this out by offering their G37 only with MT as a fully spec'd top line model with all the bells and whistles. If you want the MT, you pony up for it.

So Acura, are you listening? How about some freaking options here for those of us who prefer manual transmissions? Maybe it's time you realized that we're not all a bunch of cheapskates looking to just save on fuel. Maybe it's time you realized that some, possibly most of us, would really prefer a more premium trim level in conjunction with our manual transmissions. If you can only offer one model with an MT, then make it the top spec model. Kind of like how in the 3G TL for 2007 and 2008, if you wanted a manual, you had to get the top spec Type-S model. I am okay with paying more to get my manual transmission.

Acura_Dude