Generally good review, but probably the worst accel numbers yet.

0-60: 8.3
1/4 Mile: 16.3

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/acur.....reviews..4.*

 

Drat, I was hoping those were numbers for the 5AT, not the 6MT! Oh well, still a great car!

 

nice find...

I think it's a pretty impressive review. It seems like all the Edmunds editors were very high on the whole TSX experience. With statements like...

"We quickly forgot about our recently departed A4"

and

"After our weeklong test-drive, the TSX moved from just capturing our attention to holding it in a headlock."

I think they discovered what many of us already knew.

 

wow, those are saab93 arc like numbers..Just giving you al ittle rib 93kewl


I always take numbers with a grain of salt. So far we only have one user who has been to the track but he pulled a 15.5 at 90 stock(even crap tires) so it's all good.

 

That's Kewl!

I already posted on the "for your reading pleasure" thread. I am confused how an 9-3 Linear posted better numbers than the TSX.

 

what kind of timeslips are 93 owners getting at the track? You have a link to a good forum?

Also I don't think edmunds does any kind of standardizing for weather and conditions which can make a pretty large difference. I'm also not sure if they do all the testing in the same place car to car.

 

I dunno....there was enough bad things in this review for it to disappoint me, even though it was over all decent. The ripped the styling, the brakes, and steering. And in the "second opinion" section one editor actually said he would take the mazda6 instead.

 

I think it was a favorable review, especially considering that they mention their dear 3-series and state that...

"We've gushed through many a road test about the superior handling characteristics of the BMW 3 Series, and when it's considered against the coveted BMW, we still have to express enthusiasm for the TSX."

The second opinion from the one editor expressing a deeper love for the Mazda6 doesn't bother me - it's just one guy's opinion, and they tend to pick polarizing ones from their crowd of editors. The Mazda people will eat it up though.

 

Honda accord 2003 v6 owns them both!hehe

 

Very odd numbers for the review:

Edmunds Observed (mpg): 22

0 - 60 (sec): 8.3

1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 16.30 @ 86.33

I know all these numbers have been SIGNIFICANTLY better here on the forums and other reviews.

 

Can any of those numbers (esp. the mileage) be due to a brand new engine/car vs. a properly broken-in engine with some miles on it? Even so, the mileage seems low and the 0-60 time seems high.

 

That editor is a chick. She obviously smokes crack.

 

Which editor is a chick?

 

This review was written by Kelly Stennick.

One thing I noticed was praise for the Nav system. Easy to use, they say, with no complaints about misunderstood commands.

 

edmunds probably doesn't launch the car

 

That's a good point - I wish more publications would indicate how they achieve their acceleration data - launch technique as well as ambient conditions and whether the engine was brand spanking new or broken in.

Frankly, I'd rather know what 0-60 time is achieved using an aggressive, but non-abusive launch. If they manage to shave a 1/2 second by side-stepping the clutch at 5000 rpm that means little to me as I'm not likely to treat my $28k car like that.

Jaeger

 

Very fair review.

 

I am pretty sure they launch the car hard. Edmunds usually tries many different things to get the best times. If you read the accel notes, they mention they they actually shifted at 7300 ...so they were definately aggressive.

 

perhaps their testing equipment isn't up to par

 

Good Review!
I had to look up "innocuous" Which means uninspiring or not offensive.

Good review nonetheless. I agree with the sheet metal it could be more eye appealing. Nice car though.

 

Check out this review by motortrend. TSX vs Benz and Saab. It doesn't give 1/4 mile times, but it says the TSX was the drag strip champ!

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...0k/index1.html

 

Autoweek got something similar. 0-60: 7.3 seconds
http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=09051638

 

Well, that explains everything!















Just kidding! Don't me, ladies....

 

I was also wondering whether they took the VSA off or not.

 

Hmm...that could be it. I would be surprised though.

Oh well...the recent Autoweek review/numbers have taken the sting out of these numbers so I am feeling better

 

Kelly can be a guy's name too, you know. I have 2 male friends named Kelly.

 

I'm sure they know how to turn VSA off. When they tested the Accord V6 sedan, they turned off traction control and simply stomped it, even going as far as writing that they weren't using brake torquing to get it 0-60 in 7 seconds.