Acura: TSX News
#42
Originally posted by RJC RSX
nicely written
interesting to see they got 0-60 mph: 7.38 sec in the auto. The braking figure also suprised me, 60 mph-0: 135 ft
nicely written
interesting to see they got 0-60 mph: 7.38 sec in the auto. The braking figure also suprised me, 60 mph-0: 135 ft
#43
Originally posted by RJC RSX
nicely written
interesting to see they got 0-60 mph: 7.38 sec in the auto. The braking figure also suprised me, 60 mph-0: 135 ft
nicely written
interesting to see they got 0-60 mph: 7.38 sec in the auto. The braking figure also suprised me, 60 mph-0: 135 ft
#44
Originally posted by TinkySD
they used the 6mt! I wish the auto was that quick, lol. by the way RJC were you the one to post that vid of the rsx running the s2k? If so repost I want to show it to some people who are disbelievers.
they used the 6mt! I wish the auto was that quick, lol. by the way RJC were you the one to post that vid of the rsx running the s2k? If so repost I want to show it to some people who are disbelievers.
#45
compare to Autoweek test for Mazda6s
Wanted a basis for comparison of how realistic Autoweeks numbers were in their testing versus others (edmunds) and looked for another 'Full Test'. the Mazda 6s report was errily similar.
Here's an apple to apple comparison versus the Mazda 6 using Autoweeks earlier full test.
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=08196585
Note brackets: {Acura TSX} (Mazda6s)
ACCELERATION {TSX} (Mazda6s)
0-60 mph: {7.38 sec} (7.25)
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): {7.83 sec} (7.89)
0-quarter-mile (89.7 mph): {15.6 sec} (15.66)
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (second gear): {2.9 sec} (3.6)
40-60 mph (third gear): {4.1 sec} (3.5)
60-80 mph (fourth gear): {6.0 sec} (5.3)
BRAKING
60 mph-0: {135 ft} (129)
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: {43.4 mph} (43.3)
Lateral acceleration
(200-foot skidpad): {0.83 g} (0.80)
INTERIOR NOISE (dBA)
Idle: {39} (40)
Full throttle: {73} (79)
Steady 60 mph: {59} (64)
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: {25.0 mpg} (23.33mpg)
AW overall: {23.5 mpg} (21.70mpg)
Here's an apple to apple comparison versus the Mazda 6 using Autoweeks earlier full test.
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=08196585
Note brackets: {Acura TSX} (Mazda6s)
ACCELERATION {TSX} (Mazda6s)
0-60 mph: {7.38 sec} (7.25)
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): {7.83 sec} (7.89)
0-quarter-mile (89.7 mph): {15.6 sec} (15.66)
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (second gear): {2.9 sec} (3.6)
40-60 mph (third gear): {4.1 sec} (3.5)
60-80 mph (fourth gear): {6.0 sec} (5.3)
BRAKING
60 mph-0: {135 ft} (129)
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: {43.4 mph} (43.3)
Lateral acceleration
(200-foot skidpad): {0.83 g} (0.80)
INTERIOR NOISE (dBA)
Idle: {39} (40)
Full throttle: {73} (79)
Steady 60 mph: {59} (64)
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: {25.0 mpg} (23.33mpg)
AW overall: {23.5 mpg} (21.70mpg)
#46
Re: compare to Autoweek test for Mazda6s
Originally posted by 98AccordEx
Wanted a basis for comparison of how realistic Autoweeks numbers were in their testing versus others (edmunds) and looked for another 'Full Test'. the Mazda 6s report was errily similar.
Here's an apple to apple comparison versus the Mazda 6 using Autoweeks earlier full test.
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=08196585
Note brackets: {Acura TSX} (Mazda6s)
ACCELERATION {TSX} (Mazda6s)
0-60 mph: {7.38 sec} (7.25)
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): {7.83 sec} (7.89)
0-quarter-mile (89.7 mph): {15.6 sec} (15.66)
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (second gear): {2.9 sec} (3.6)
40-60 mph (third gear): {4.1 sec} (3.5)
60-80 mph (fourth gear): {6.0 sec} (5.3)
BRAKING
60 mph-0: {135 ft} (129)
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: {43.4 mph} (43.3)
Lateral acceleration
(200-foot skidpad): {0.83 g} (0.80)
INTERIOR NOISE (dBA)
Idle: {39} (40)
Full throttle: {73} (79)
Steady 60 mph: {59} (64)
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: {25.0 mpg} (23.33mpg)
AW overall: {23.5 mpg} (21.70mpg)
Wanted a basis for comparison of how realistic Autoweeks numbers were in their testing versus others (edmunds) and looked for another 'Full Test'. the Mazda 6s report was errily similar.
Here's an apple to apple comparison versus the Mazda 6 using Autoweeks earlier full test.
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=08196585
Note brackets: {Acura TSX} (Mazda6s)
ACCELERATION {TSX} (Mazda6s)
0-60 mph: {7.38 sec} (7.25)
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): {7.83 sec} (7.89)
0-quarter-mile (89.7 mph): {15.6 sec} (15.66)
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (second gear): {2.9 sec} (3.6)
40-60 mph (third gear): {4.1 sec} (3.5)
60-80 mph (fourth gear): {6.0 sec} (5.3)
BRAKING
60 mph-0: {135 ft} (129)
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: {43.4 mph} (43.3)
Lateral acceleration
(200-foot skidpad): {0.83 g} (0.80)
INTERIOR NOISE (dBA)
Idle: {39} (40)
Full throttle: {73} (79)
Steady 60 mph: {59} (64)
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: {25.0 mpg} (23.33mpg)
AW overall: {23.5 mpg} (21.70mpg)
#48
Originally posted by RJC RSX
It said their car was auto!......
It said their car was auto!......
As I said elsewhere, I swear I did even better than that, like 6.0 or less (with my tank almost empty, which helped), even though I didn't really believe it myself and I sure didn't expect anybody else to believe it. But sure as hell it was less than 7.
BTW: Is there anything standard about how full they make the tank for tests like this?
#49
Originally posted by larchmont
I'm not surprised.
As I said elsewhere, I swear I did even better than that, like 6.0 or less (with my tank almost empty, which helped), even though I didn't really believe it myself and I sure didn't expect anybody else to believe it. But sure as hell it was less than 7.
BTW: Is there anything standard about how full they make the tank for tests like this?
I'm not surprised.
As I said elsewhere, I swear I did even better than that, like 6.0 or less (with my tank almost empty, which helped), even though I didn't really believe it myself and I sure didn't expect anybody else to believe it. But sure as hell it was less than 7.
BTW: Is there anything standard about how full they make the tank for tests like this?
#50
Originally posted by fdl
NO it was most definately a 6MT. Not sure where you got the auto from.
NO it was most definately a 6MT. Not sure where you got the auto from.
I think I see where RJC got "auto" from. At the bottom, where they have the long list of data etc., here's an excerpt:
OPTIONS AS TESTED
Navigation system ($2,000)
OTHER MAJOR OPTIONS
Five-speed automatic (no charge)
I think RJC took this to mean that the car they tested had the AT; he could be right, or not. I don't think that's what it means, but you could see it either way.
#52
Originally posted by fdl
Larch...the time they got was from a 6MT. You are saying you got less tha 6 seconds 0-60? Thats impossible. How did you time it? I think the auto will do 8 second at the very best.
Larch...the time they got was from a 6MT. You are saying you got less tha 6 seconds 0-60? Thats impossible. How did you time it? I think the auto will do 8 second at the very best.
Here's the post (I'd copy it here, except it's embarrassing enough already even without showing it again):
http://www.acura-tsx.com/forums/show...7315#post17315
BTW -- Does anyone know the answer to what I asked before --
whether there's anything standard about the gas tank for tests like this?
#53
Originally posted by fdl
come on guys....READ. Yes it lists auto as an OPTION, and this is what it lists for drivetrain...
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Six-speed manual
Final drive ratio: 4.7:1
come on guys....READ. Yes it lists auto as an OPTION, and this is what it lists for drivetrain...
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Six-speed manual
Final drive ratio: 4.7:1
#54
Nice article. I was really surprised that they listed the jaguar x-type as an "others considered". In all of the posts on this site and others that I have read, and in all of the reviews in magazines, I don't think I've ever seen the jag mentioned. I guess the panache of the jaguar name is a complement to be compared to, but otherwise, I don't like this comparison, as I think the x-type is an old-man's car (no offense to the old men here!).
Also, did anyone notice that it says the fuel requirement is 87 octane? A bit misleading, no? Especially when in the same section it gives the hp/tq ratings as 200/166 - if you give those performance numbers, shouldn't you also report the correct gasoline rating that you need to achieve them?
Also, did anyone notice that it says the fuel requirement is 87 octane? A bit misleading, no? Especially when in the same section it gives the hp/tq ratings as 200/166 - if you give those performance numbers, shouldn't you also report the correct gasoline rating that you need to achieve them?
#55
Originally posted by wishiwere
.....it says the fuel requirement is 87 octane? A bit misleading, no? Especially when in the same section it gives the hp/tq ratings as 200/166 - if you give those performance numbers, shouldn't you also report the correct gasoline rating that you need to achieve them?
.....it says the fuel requirement is 87 octane? A bit misleading, no? Especially when in the same section it gives the hp/tq ratings as 200/166 - if you give those performance numbers, shouldn't you also report the correct gasoline rating that you need to achieve them?
#56
Autospies a hot Acura Rumour!
Direct from this week's autospies newsletter....... pretty good words about the TSX!
http://www.imakenews.com/autospies/e...e000173621.cfm
Hot Acura rumor
We sure hope it's true!
One of our favorite 2004 cars is the new Acura TSX.
It could be the best car for under 30K...
Sources tell us an AWD version is in the works and a Nissan Murano and Infiniti FX competitor, with the Acura badge, is in process as we speak.
They might show up as early as 2005.
Um... damn straight its the best car under 30k... now everyone knows it!!!
J.
http://www.imakenews.com/autospies/e...e000173621.cfm
Hot Acura rumor
We sure hope it's true!
One of our favorite 2004 cars is the new Acura TSX.
It could be the best car for under 30K...
Sources tell us an AWD version is in the works and a Nissan Murano and Infiniti FX competitor, with the Acura badge, is in process as we speak.
They might show up as early as 2005.
Um... damn straight its the best car under 30k... now everyone knows it!!!
J.
#57
AWD in 2005 ... now that would be just wrong of them. If that comes with more power .... then I might just have to understand what getting out of a lease 1/2 way thru is like going Acura->Acura
Maybe they are confused and heard about the TSX Wagon
Maybe they are confused and heard about the TSX Wagon
#58
Nice! I was just about to open the autospies newsletter when I saw your post. Anyways, maybe (probably) I'm being stupid here, but I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what they're saying. Are they saying that there will be an AWD version of the tsx AND a totally different acura car that will be positioned to compete with the Murano/FX, or are they saying that there will be an AWD version of the tsx that will be positioned to compete with those two (like maybe a tsx wagon with a higher ground clearance type of thing...maybe kind of like the audi all road?)? Thanks!
#61
Originally posted by swami
Dude...There talking about an AWD TSX and a new sport utility.
Dude...There talking about an AWD TSX and a new sport utility.
Anyways, I think an awd tsx would be sweet. That way, they could kill 3 birds with 1 stone - it will make the marketing people happy, as it is definitely a buzzword that generates excitement about a car (look at how many posts were dedicated to the possibility the the 04 TL might have awd), it will make the tsx a monster on the curvies, and it will allow the weight distribution to be pushed back to allow closer to 50% front/back (also, maybe pave the way for a v6, considering they could get away with it without killing the balance?)? Sounds good to me
#63
I hope that SUV isn't a re-badged, luxo version of the of the CRV. :P hehe.
Seriously, a Honda version of Audi's Allroad using the JPN wagon would be cool. Hope Honda doesn't take the easy way out and borrow a platform to fill this niche like they did with the Isuzu Passport (or was that the Rodeo?).
Seriously, a Honda version of Audi's Allroad using the JPN wagon would be cool. Hope Honda doesn't take the easy way out and borrow a platform to fill this niche like they did with the Isuzu Passport (or was that the Rodeo?).
#64
Originally posted by swami
Hey Prov...I'm gonna get pissed if this happens. AWD and who's to say it won't have 220-240hp. Like I said "I'd be PISSED"
Hey Prov...I'm gonna get pissed if this happens. AWD and who's to say it won't have 220-240hp. Like I said "I'd be PISSED"
I will go to my dealer and demand a zero cost exit from my current lease
Perhaps this is a bit premature as this info could be completely bogus
#65
Originally posted by provench
I will go to my dealer and demand a zero cost exit from my current lease
Perhaps this is a bit premature as this info could be completely bogus
I will go to my dealer and demand a zero cost exit from my current lease
Perhaps this is a bit premature as this info could be completely bogus
#66
Originally posted by wishiwere
Historically, how long does acura usually wait before releasing a performance version of a newly released vehicle?
Historically, how long does acura usually wait before releasing a performance version of a newly released vehicle?
But you guys know me ... I am the optimist to a fault
#67
Autospies, though somtimes filled with rumours, has so far proven its track record on numerous occasions..
Wouldnt it be funny to find out that the information Autospies recieved was picked directly off of this website? Hehe.. were questioning our own info...
J.
Wouldnt it be funny to find out that the information Autospies recieved was picked directly off of this website? Hehe.. were questioning our own info...
J.
#68
Originally posted by provench
2 years .... which is one reason why this info seems suspect.
But you guys know me ... I am the optimist to a fault
2 years .... which is one reason why this info seems suspect.
But you guys know me ... I am the optimist to a fault
#69
Originally posted by wishiwere
Well, the 2 years would actually be reason to believe it - since the tsx came out in 03, and they say this car could come out in 05 (I'm guessing for the 06 model year).
Well, the 2 years would actually be reason to believe it - since the tsx came out in 03, and they say this car could come out in 05 (I'm guessing for the 06 model year).
#70
Originally posted by provench
Ah yes ... you are right ... they said 2005 year ... not model year I guess. Ok, that helps me out too ... didn't really wanna take a beating on my lease THAT early. But I do have a feeling that 6 months prior to my lease being up (Fall 2005), I just might find myself stepping in to the purchase (vs. lease) of my long term car .... the '06 TSX performance model !!! Come on Acura !!
Ah yes ... you are right ... they said 2005 year ... not model year I guess. Ok, that helps me out too ... didn't really wanna take a beating on my lease THAT early. But I do have a feeling that 6 months prior to my lease being up (Fall 2005), I just might find myself stepping in to the purchase (vs. lease) of my long term car .... the '06 TSX performance model !!! Come on Acura !!
#71
Yes autospies i have come to regard as pretty reliable with their sources. If the TSX awd version comes out i will not care. I will still get the fwd. I don't need awd in LA, however if it has more HP then someone is going to die in acura.
#72
Originally posted by Weck
Hope Honda doesn't take the easy way out and borrow a platform to fill this niche like they did with the Isuzu Passport (or was that the Rodeo?).
Hope Honda doesn't take the easy way out and borrow a platform to fill this niche like they did with the Isuzu Passport (or was that the Rodeo?).
Regarding "borrowing" from another manufacturer, I cringe at the thought.
Aye, me-thinks and me-hopes that Honda learned a valuable lesson from their experience with Isuzu.
#74
Don't want to state the obvious, but the Euro Accord wagon already has the AWD. If you go onto the Japanese site, you can order a badge that has AWD on it. This still seems like a push by mid to late next year.
#80
Originally posted by 1SICKLEX
Acura has said it will re-badge a CR-V by 2007. Way to stay downmarket.
Acura has said it will re-badge a CR-V by 2007. Way to stay downmarket.