....and the guy doesn't really like it

check it out

http://www.autonet.ca/AutonetStories...m?StoryID=9272

 

What a stupid review!

"The TSX is marginally smaller inside and out than the current Accord (which was introduced last year) and costs over $5,000 more (comparably equipped). The justification is upgraded content, such as a more powerful engine, variable assist power steering, larger wheels and tires, traction control, standard roadside assistance, sport seats up front and two more speakers in the cabin."

What does this mean? He says it's $5000 more comparably equipped, but then he lists (incompletely) all the upgraded content. Is this guy for real?

"The result is lacklustre performance at everyday driving speeds, but a whirlwind of activity at the redline. Most Honda owners are aware and tolerant of noise levels in order to get the most out of their engines, so it won't be seen as a problem to any of them."

I didn't know you sell crack in Canada! Lacklustre[sic] performance? I don't understand. It's every bit as fast at the competition, and faster in some cases. The performance on this car is fine as well as the noise levels. It is very smooth at 75 mph (well over 100 KPH for you buddy!).

 

Additionally, the TSX's low end power curve is clearly superior to that of the BMW 325's I6 and the Audi A4's 1.8T, neither of which receives ratings of lackluster low end performance. I think reviewers these days see "Honda I4" as an automatic trigger for typing something negative about the engine's low end performance, even when this does not correspond to reality.

Drive the cars! Chirping the TSX's tires with a firm 3000RPM launch is no problem at all. Try that with a Mazda 6, 3 liters and 6 cylinders certainly didn't help that car.

It's not the size or the cylinder count. Execution matters the most! Honda, above all other engine manufacturers, is well known for their engineering prowess and well executed designs.

 

I love this...!!

"Of note is the ringing-out of 200 horses from the same engine that powers Accord (and makes 160 hp), though you have to push it to nearly 7000 rpm in order to spur all of them on. Useful power (i.e., torque) is little changed at 166 lbs.ft, up from 161, both peaking at 4500 rpm."

Useful power = torque. What?? Apparently this guy didn't read Lee Lee's post on the uselessness of focusing on torque.

and this...

"...to small, too powerful and too expensive for North American consumption..."

Apparently the BMW 325, Audi A4, Saab 9-3, IS300, etc. are all too small and too powerful?? I guess Canadians prefer to drive four wheel drive marshmellow.

 

Too funny...I thought you'd be all over this one!

 

That man does not represent Canadians !!!!!!

He's obviously an idiot.

 

Sure domn.

BTW, your fantasy football team sucks and you're going to lose!

 

Santacruz Mudcocks RULE!!!

 

What's most interesting to me about this is the fact that it's the only less-than-positive review I've seen. Isn't this the first? There have been cars that the automotive press has gushed over in the past, but they are few. Seems to me that there haven't been many more than a handful.

Let's see........ the RX7? the Miata? the first 190 horsepower Maxima? a bunch of years of the Accord and the BMW 3 series? I'm sure there are others.

But the point is the TSX seems to be receiving the same kind of real enthusiasm from the press as those others. If it holds up, it may well belong on that list.

 

The review is no big deal. I mean so what, the guy didn't like the car. From many of the reviews already written about the TSX it's easy to see this critic is in the very small minority. When the Miata came out he probably called it an impractical tight fitting coupe that rides dangerously low to the ground. I refuse to get uptight about ONE bad review.

On a similar note: Why don't auto critics have to inform readers what cars they own before they write an article? That way if some guy tooling around in BMW 3 series writes a bad review about the Infiniti G35, readers could account for some possible personal bias.

 

an opinion is one thing, but he blatantly spread misinformation and left out some important details.

 

When was the last time the Bears won anything?

 

I'd like to reiterate that the guy does not represent Canadians!!

He obviously wrote the article the morning it was due while sitting on the shitter... relating less information on the car than I took in from my first test drive.

If AUTONET wants to be taken seriously for its automotive reviews, they'll have to do better then that. I don't care if someone writes a less-than-glowing review of the TSX (or any other car) so long as they have their facts straight and have spent some time really driving the car.

 

The article is not even well written. If you are a writer and you can't write well, then you lose all credibility IMO.

I like the caption beneath the picture of the engine - 'The TSX massages 60 more horses out of the VTEC 2.4 "four."' I believe the difference between 200 and 160 is 40, not 60.

I saw another negative review in some non-automotive magazine online (CNN? Money? Something like that). My opinion of the car is already set, and very high, so I don't really care what other reviews say. I am curious about head-to-head comparisons though.

 

I noticed that when i first read it too because i always read the picture captions first. After I saw that, I knew the article was going to be plain o' shit.