When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It is not better than TLX. TLX is more unique look. Longer warranty and better dealer service.
interior is better.
Better is subjective. I think it's better. If you don't, that's your prerogative.
With half of the $2,000 you'll save by buying the Accord Touring over the 2.4 TLX with Tech, you can buy an 8 yr/120K mile Honda Care warranty. Then again, why would you need an extended warranty. Honda are #1 in reliability. You've said so on many occasions yourself.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
There is number of ways car quality is measured. for me how the car is put together is #1. i dont want car with bald tires and rattles.
Honda is #1 and BMW is #25. it is long term reliability.
And since American Honda's are "more cheaper version" than EU Honda's, chances of anything breaking down are much lower.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
warranty direct survey is based on models on past 10 to 15 years.
Honda models in EU has much electronic gadgets as Acura. so chances of breakdown are higher there. American Honda are more cheaper version. Its Acura that should be compared to EU Hondas.
So buying an extended Honda Care warranty is pointless and a waste of money because it won't be needed as much as you'll need it for an Acura.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
and V6 you still have to pay $1k for timing belt.
$1k? Try $569.
$2,000 saved by buying Accord Touring vs 2.4 TLX w/Tech - $569 timing belt job = $1,431 in your pocket
Accord interior not good enough? Use that $1,431 and put in a VIP #luxury table and Tsuna knot. You might even have some money left over to get some #stance and #tints
Better is subjective. I think it's better. If you don't, that's your prerogative.
Better is not subjective. just sit in car. the materials, design and window thickness, quientess in TLX is far better.
With half of the $2,000 you'll save by buying the Accord Touring over the 2.4 TLX with Tech, you can buy an 8 yr/120K mile Honda Care warranty. Then again, why would you need an extended warranty. Honda are #1 in reliability. You've said so on many occasions yourself.
You have to change timing belt every 60k miles after first 90k miles in V6 models. city fuel economic of V6 models is 20% poor. V6 models depreciate far more in used car lot and are nose heavy in driving experiance and heavy car with smaller brakes needed more often brakes.
And since American Honda's are "more cheaper version" than EU Honda's, chances of anything breaking down are much lower.
it still cost more to maintain
So buying an extended Honda Care warranty is pointless and a waste of money because it won't be needed as much as you'll need it for an Acura.
cars now have far more electronics. it is better to have extended warranty.
$1k? Try $569.
you cant replace it on $569 unless you are doing in some one garage. labor rates in california are now sky rocketting. It is not mcdonald food without long term warranty.
$2,000 saved by buying Accord Touring vs 2.4 TLX w/Tech - $569 timing belt job = $1,431 in your pocket
it isnt. you need 3 timing belts before 200k miles. and by that time the labor rates will be more.
Accord interior certainly not good enough. TLX comes with wider tires standard. better handling, DVD player, perimeter lighting.
TLX 4 cylinder has same performace as Accord sport but 27mpg vs 22mpg and having worse tires. The point is when you floor the engine of TLX like C&D tests often do you lose much less in mpg in TLX compared to Accord sport.
You have to change timing belt every 60k miles after first 90k miles in V6 models.
Honda no longer has a time/mileage based schedule. They say to follow the maintenance minder. But when they did, it was 7 yrs/105K miles. I have no idea where you're getting this 90K and 60K from. I drive under 10K a year which means if I was to follow a time/mileage timing belt schedule, I'd change it at the 7 year mark. I wouldn't have to change it again until the car is 14 yrs old and by that time I wouldn't have the car anymore... so I'd only be doing 1 timing belt job.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
city fuel economic of V6 models is 20% poor.
3.5 V6 Accord MPG per Honda: 21 city / 34 highway / 26 combined
2.4 I-4 TLX MPG per Acura: 24 city / 35 highway / 28 combined
Difference between 21 and 24 is not 20%. Accord takes regular fuel. TLX takes premium. Regular fuel is currently $4.19. Premium fuel is currently $4.39.
9,000 miles per year ÷ 21 MPG city = 428.57 gal per year x $4.19 = $1,795.71
9,000 miles per year ÷ 24 MPG city = 375.00 gal per year x $4.39 = $1,646.25
Accord costs $149.46 more per year in fuel if I drove 100% city. Who the hell drives 100% city? Taking their combined numbers would be more applicable and realistic....
9,000 miles per year ÷ 26 MPG city = 346.15 gal per year x $4.19 = $1,450.37
9,000 miles per year ÷ 28 MPG city = 321.43 gal per year x $4.39 = $1,411.08
Accord costs $39.29 more per year in fuel. Over an ownership period of 10 years, that's less than $500 more vs the 2.4 TLX.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
V6 models depreciate far more in used car lot and are nose heavy in driving experiance and heavy car with smaller brakes needed more often brakes.
All negligible to me. But if owning and driving a car with a V6 engine is so terrible, you should tell Honda/Acura to stop offering it. Honda should go only 2.4L across their entire lineup. 2.4L Accord, 2.4L TLX, 2.4L RLX, 2.4L MDX. 2.4L Odyssey, 2.4L Pilot, and 2.4L Ridgeline.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
you cant replace it on $569 unless you are doing in some one garage. labor rates in california are now sky rocketting. It is not mcdonald food without long term warranty.
$700 in California for timing belt job. At some point the 2.4 TLX will need to have its water pump, coolant, and drive belt replaced too. How much would it be at the dealer? $300? $400? That means the V6 costs $300-$400 more for this maintenance.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
it isnt. you need 3 timing belts before 200k miles. and by that time the labor rates will be more.
3? No, I'd only need 1 as I explained above.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
Accord interior certainly not good enough.
Maybe not for you, but it's certainly something I can live with.
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
TLX comes with wider tires standard. better handling, DVD player, perimeter lighting.
The only thing the 2.4 TLX is better at is road holding. And that's only by 0.01 g. A negligible difference.
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec vs 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.9 sec vs 17.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 21.2 sec vs 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec vs 7.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec vs 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.1 sec vs 4.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mph vs 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 125 mph vs 134 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 178 ft vs 179 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g vs 0.83 g
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
TLX 4 cylinder has same performace as Accord sport but 27mpg vs 22mpg and having worse tires. The point is when you floor the engine of TLX like C&D tests often do you lose much less in mpg in TLX compared to Accord sport.
Honda no longer has a time/mileage based schedule. They say to follow the maintenance minder. But when they did, it was 7 yrs/105K miles. I have no idea where you're getting this 90K and 60K from. I drive under 10K a year which means if I was to follow a time/mileage timing belt schedule, I'd change it at the 7 year mark. I wouldn't have to change it again until the car is 14 yrs old and by that time I wouldn't have the car anymore... so I'd only be doing 1 timing belt job.
It does not matter. this thing is part of depreciating cost. thats why V6 depreciate far more than I4 models. any one keeping long term V6 will pay signficantly more in maintaince and depreciation.
2004 TSX has much higher reasale value than 2004 V6 Accord.
Frequently Asked Questions - Official Honda Web Site
Depending on the model year of the vehicle, it is typically between 60,000 and 90,000 miles. If your vehicle has a timing chain, instead of a timing belt, replacement of the timing chain is not required. Refer to the Scheduled Maintenance section of the appropriate owner's manual for specific information.
3.5 V6 Accord MPG per Honda: 21 city / 34 highway / 26 combined
2.4 I-4 TLX MPG per Acura: 24 city / 35 highway / 28 combined
Difference between 21 and 24 is not 20%. Accord takes regular fuel. TLX takes premium. Regular fuel is currently $4.19. Premium fuel is currently $4.39.
9,000 miles per year ÷ 21 MPG city = 428.57 gal per year x $4.19 = $1,795.71
9,000 miles per year ÷ 24 MPG city = 375.00 gal per year x $4.39 = $1,646.25
Accord costs $149.46 more per year in fuel if I drove 100% city. Who the hell drives 100% city? Taking their combined numbers would be more applicable and realistic....
9,000 miles per year ÷ 26 MPG city = 346.15 gal per year x $4.19 = $1,450.37
9,000 miles per year ÷ 28 MPG city = 321.43 gal per year x $4.39 = $1,411.08
Accord costs $39.29 more per year in fuel. Over an ownership period of 10 years, that's less than $500 more vs the 2.4 TLX.
these are EPA figures nothing to do with real life. premium fuel burn much better. power delivery smother from stop and go traffic. it consumes much less.
All negligible to me. But if owning and driving a car with a V6 engine is so terrible, you should tell Honda/Acura to stop offering it. Honda should go only 2.4L across their entire lineup. 2.4L Accord, 2.4L TLX, 2.4L RLX, 2.4L MDX. 2.4L Odyssey, 2.4L Pilot, and 2.4L Ridgeline.
Those V6 are for CUV/trucks. they are just byproduct for Cars. Anyone want to save money on maintaince, depreciation they should stay clear from V6. Look at Honda CRV resale value compared to honda Pilot.
$700 in California for timing belt job. At some point the 2.4 TLX will need to have its water pump, coolant, and drive belt replaced too. How much would it be at the dealer? $300? $400? That means the V6 costs $300-$400 more for this maintenance.
Zero to 60 mph: 5.6 sec vs 6.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.9 sec vs 17.9 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 21.2 sec vs 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.9 sec vs 7.3 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.3 sec vs 3.8 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 4.1 sec vs 4.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.1 sec @ 101 mph vs 15.4 sec @ 93 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 125 mph vs 134 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 178 ft vs 179 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g vs 0.83 g
Why are you bringing up the 2.4L Accord Sport. We've been talking about the V6 Accord and 2.4 TLX. Stop trying to change things to suit yourself.
Those buying 4 cylinder TLX not looking at performance but more upscale interior and dealer experiance. It has nothing to do with performance.
Just like Honda Civic EX-L cost same as Honda Civic Si.
TLX has larger 225/55 tires.
#1 It does not matter. this thing is part of depreciating cost. thats why V6 depreciate far more than I4 models. any one keeping long term V6 will pay signficantly more in maintaince and depreciation.
2004 TSX has much higher reasale value than 2004 V6 Accord.
#2 these are EPA figures nothing to do with real life. premium fuel burn much better. power delivery smother from stop and go traffic. it consumes much less.
#3 Those buying 4 cylinder TLX not looking at performance but more upscale interior and dealer experiance. It has nothing to do with performance.
#1 According to KBB, a 2004 TSX's resale value is between $150-$600 more than a 2004 Accord EX-L in a Private Party sale. As a trade-in, the 2004 TSX's resale value is $550 more. $550-$600 isn't "much higher."
Accord Touring averages 27.32 MPG. 2.4 TLX doesn't have enough date, but with what's available, the median is 29 MPG. Using this real world data, we get...
Accord Touring: 9,000 miles per year ÷ 27.32 MPG city = 329.43 gal per year x $4.19 = $1,380.31
2.4 TLX: 9,000 miles per year ÷ 29 MPG city = 310.34 gal per year x $4.39 = $1,362.39
Accord costs $17.92 more per year in fuel.
Even if the 2.4 TLX averaged 32 MPG (about 20% more) than the Accord,
2.4 TLX: 9,000 miles per year ÷ 32 MPG city = 281.25 gal per year x $4.39 = $1,234.69
the Accord would cost $145.62 more per year in fuel.
#3 You're deviating from the original point I made which was that the 2016 MMC Accord Touring for $34K will be a better value than a $36K 2.4 TLX with Tech for me. While I wasn't speaking for everyone, I also know that I'm not the only one who feels that way (see fsttyms1's post). You don't seem to get that. Ever. We're not speaking for everyone. We're just speaking for ourselves.
So you like the 2.4 TLX w/Tech more than the Accord Touring. That's fine. Buy what you like and want. But when comparing the 2.4 TLX w/Tech and Accord Touring, I'll choose the latter every time. Even more so once it gets the MMC updates.
Maybe 2.4 TLX buyers aren't looking for performance. But if they chose the 2016 Accord Touring, they'll get that plus more tech and safety features. As for dealer experience, dealer visits will be very minimal. Like you said, Honda's are #1 in reliability. Plus, I can do most work myself. But of the 3 times I've ever needed to go to a Honda dealer for repairs (i.e. recalls), it's been a very pleasant experience. I just make an appointment online and drop off the car. I even got a loaner for free. Can't imagine an Acura dealer being much different unless they give happy endings.
So you like the 2.4 TLX w/Tech more than the Accord Touring. That's fine. Buy what you like and want. But when comparing the 2.4 TLX w/Tech and Accord Touring, I'll choose the latter every time. Even more so once it gets the MMC updates.
That's your problem as you like lower quality and material product and called it value. There is nothing value about premium brand. which one you will choose Civic EX-L or Civic Si?
Accord V6 loaded with navigation and TSX non navigation are not even same price when they have similar mileage let alone navigation TSX.
Maybe 2.4 TLX buyers aren't looking for performance. But if they chose the 2016 Accord Touring, they'll get that plus more tech and safety features
they will not get more features. The quietness, ride and audio systems are not same. and neither is the seat quality and design and certainly resale values.
That's your problem as you like lower quality and material product and called it value. There is nothing value about premium brand. which one you will choose Civic EX-L or Civic Si?
Remember you said this right now. It will come back and bite you in the ass soon.
So you like the 2.4 TLX w/Tech more than the Accord Touring. That's fine. Buy what you like and want. But when comparing the 2.4 TLX w/Tech and Accord Touring, I'll choose the latter every time. Even more so once it gets the MMC updates.
That's your problem as you like lower quality and material product and called it value. There is nothing value about premium brand.
That's what I've been trying to say about the TLX all this time. There is nothing value about the premium TLX.
I see SSFTSX is back to his antics, why do we keep feeding the troll/ ex-Acura engineer that got fired for poorly designing the TLX and is in a desperate attempt to try to win us all back?
07-25-2015, 06:22 PM
Try $569. 
