I said I owned a 2012...the 2004 and 2012 are a different generation. Also design is a subjective thing.

 

I am a big guy (6 ft, and my wife describes me as rather "fluffy"), and I have no problem with the leg room, or feeling squeezed in the ILX. I do admit that there is not that much margin, but I am rather comfortable. The available space is efficiently laid out, so I don't feel how small it is.

I had a 12 TSX and TL loaner while the dealer was installing my spoiler, and they confirmed that I made the right choice with the ILX. The car felt and handled like a bigger car while driving it, and the inside really didn't feel all that big for me. The TL feels significantly larger both inside and outside. The one thing that I do think that is better about the TSX/TL is the larger screen in the dash. The navigation was meh (I use gmaps on my d4), but the larger screen was nice. By the end of the 2nd day with the loaners, I was ready to go back to the ILX. I am not saying that they are bad cars, I am just saying that they were not for me.

While the interior is rather nice, the instrument layout classy yet efficient, the size just right, that is not why I bought the car. I bought the car because it is a blast to drive. I came from an 08 Si, and the 2.4L ILX was almost as much fun to drive as my previous car. The engine note is almost perfect, the shifting feels so effortless and natural, and it just is an all around good experience in a car that is also comfortable. The ride is smoother, the LSD is lacking, there is no digital speedometer, but I still get that goofie grin while driving. That is what sold me on the car. That and I was able to get around $3k off of MSRP.

 

Then you should keep the used 2004 TSX. It was a great value "That was then" >>ILX is targeted to a different demographic. By the way the TSX Navi screen was tiny back then.

Stay on the sidelines till you find something you like.

 

In the Detroit News...Autos section...they reviewed the ILX. No offense to ILX lovers here...just reporting and giving my opinion since I do own a '13 TSX Spec. Ed.
They said the ILX was a "feeble attempt" at a entry level "luxury" car....taking a Civic and making it better, etc. Their issue is the base engine and the CVT....and the better engine is only avail. with a manual trans. Their bottom line....a loaded ILX vs a TSX.....the TSX is the better vehicle for the same money.

I must say that the TSX has been around for awhile and it is proven and refined. That 201 hp engine with the auto. with paddle shift is a great combo. The car rides and handles extremely well. And it has more overall room than the ILX.
They will most likely be making some "early changes" like Honda had to do with the Civic....since it wasn't selling that well. I think the engine/tranny choices are one of their biggest mistakes. I really like Acuras, but, they get off track sometimes...especially in styling....like the "beak" front ends of the MDX and TL. Now that has been toned down. I also own a '13 RDX. Great comeback from the Gen 1 models. Sales are doing quite well, and much better than Gen 1 RDX's.

 

The biggest thing up here in Canada is the price difference between the TSX and the ILX. Not factoring any discounts the TSX tech is $6,000 more than ILX Tech plus our tax is 12 percent, that is huge difference IMO for what are both small cars. Down in the states the prices are very similar TSX to ILX. The ILX should be lower in the states and both the ILX and TSX should be lower priced in Canada. The CSX that was replaced by the ILX was much lower in price up here and the ILX should be several thousand cheaper up here to be more competitive with what it replaced and against other mfg's vehicles.

The price point of the ILX hurts it in all reviews against the TSX and the competition.

 

I continue to be amazed at why it's so difficult for people to wrap their brain around this. Everything goes back to the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. Hardest hit was Hondas research and development center in northern Japan and this directly impacted new-product arriving today. In the end, it left Honda with several choices, all of them less than optimal. Since this car was designed to take the new Earth Dreams engine family, the old 2.4 from the TSX wouldn't fit when combined with the large automatic transmission.

A) Launch the car with an existing engine and transmission combination And price it as if it had the "correct" engine in it. (Obviously, this is the choice they made)

B) Launch the car as is and price it as a "Civic plus". However, they would then receive a huge backlash when they raise the price to an appropriate level once the new Earth Dreams engines were added.

C). Delay the introduction of the entire car until the new engine family was ready. This meant they would lose the economies of scale on the Civic production line and sacrifice an additional 12 to 15,000 units for 2012

 

so i drove around in the snow today in the snow.
happy to report. this thing ain't so bad. it feels light and very controllable.

either way, i don't like the new gen tsx looks. If the first gen tsx kept coming out similarly but with updated suspension/engines and the manuals were more readily available, I would have taken that in a heartbeat. I took the ILX 2.4 because it only comes in manual and much easier to look for it because of that. Just search ILX 2.4L and you dont even need to narrow it down to manuals only.

 

To the TSX lover. You have a very nice "dated" car with no pushbutton start. If that is what you want, I am happy you like it. We did not. I did buy the ILX tech as it was based on the Civic!. Our 2009 EX may have been the best car we have ever had for it's class. We did not want the 2.4. we wanted the economy! The 2.0 is just fine. (Boy racers should look elsewhere as this is not the car for you) We leased and the residual is one of the best. Finally the car fits my wife's needs and she likes the handling.

Can't get over all the moaning that goes on here. Good luck on getting a car that makes you happy

 

Link?

 

Colin, Option A) implies they knowingly overpriced the car with the 2.0 L engine. I think most car buyers understand that if a better engine is offered it comes at a higher price. If they had priced the car more appropriately if may have sold better. Now Acura will be dealing with a bunch of early adopters who realize they over paid for their car. Again for B) I think people would understand a higher price. I think C) would have been a better choice. The 2.4L ED engine has been in production a few months now so it wouldn't have been much of a delay. And after driving the new Accord, that engine/transmission combo would have been great in the ILX. Now the ILX has a reputation of being underpowered and overpriced and it will take some time for that to change. Plus the similar pricing with the TSX and ILX has caused some temporary confusion until the TSX goes away. Hindsight is 20/20 and no one can go back and have a do-over to see what might have been better. I wished Acura focused more resources on getting the TLX out. The delay here I think will cost Acura more than a delay to the ILX.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does this mean-spirited douche even own an ILX?

Or is it just another civic owner with an inferiority complex?

 

Yeah, some of these cats come in, drop a load, then leave without covering it up.
I really joined to learn how fellow owners make those great improvements/tweaks to the factory issue ILXs. Wish we could get more of that front and center.

 

I am with you on this! I am experimenting with some weatherstripping for the windows.. I haven't found one way to eliminate it yet but my current set-up has reduced noise. Stay posted

 

Keep us posted on the weather-stripping. I was looking at my doors wondering how to add a second strip without impeding the door closing etc.
On a non related mod, I got some TSX door sill plates from a wrecked 2007 and removed the metal sill plate from the plastic surround, then applied them to my sills with 3 M tape. Looks like they belong.

I also ordered an Acura chrome name plate (From an RSX rear door) and put it on the left rear side of the trunk I was getting many questions about "What is an ILX". I'll try to get you pictures later.

 

WOW, I would of never thought to take the door sills from a TSX! Clever! Post pictures ASAP that sounds like an awesome mod.

I really thought about ordering the ACURA lettering (Still not sure why Acura didn't put it).. but I am more of the
"boy-racing" type.. so I'll probably be taking the "ILX" part off.. I wonder what it would look like with the TSX's "A" instead of the oversized ILX one.

 

In regards to the TSX door sills, I had to carefully grind down the metal tabs on the edges of the sills that were use to secure them to the plastic housing before applying the 3M tape. Also slightly rebent the rear TSX sills to conform to the ridges on the rear doors. Came out great.

I wonder if removal of the ILX logo will further disguise the car brand. Would you keep the logo?

 

PIX OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

I do plan to leave the "A" but considering how a smaller "A" from say a TSX would look.

 

I think they were one of the last luxury brands to still have the name on the car. They actually mentioned this as a 'point of interest' with the 2013 RDX.

 

The "a" is unnecessarily huge on the back of the ilx. Lol, I took off my ilx badge as soon as I got the car.

 

What do you think about the CU2 TSX "A" idea? I may just order one today and see how it works out.

 

not going to work...there's a curvature to the back of the ilx trunk that isn't found on the tsx. Also, there may be four holes for the A emblem on the ilx and only two for the TSX.

 

No offence, but I'm not sure if I can even trust the article in the Detroit New. I mean, they got the basic transmission info wrong - the ILX does NOT come with CVT. It's either 5AT for the base engine or 6MT for the 2.4L engine.

Most, if not all Acura's are rebadged or upgraded Honda models.

ILX = Civic plus
TSX = Euro Accord
TL = Accord plus
RL = based on Accord platform

The key point is, how different are they?

Although the TSX has 201hp/172lbft of torque, that power and torque have to push 3500lb of weight around. The ILX on the other hand uses 150hp/140lbft of torque to move 2950lb. 50hp difference sounds like a lot, but once you factor in the weight, the difference becomes smaller. The TSX has a 2lb/hp advantage.

The TSX has more hip room and shoulder room, but the ILX offers just as much headroom and leg room. TSX has a slight advantage in truck space (12.3 vs 14 cu.ft) and passenger volume (89 vs 94 cu.ft). But when you look at the numbers, the ILX actually compares quite well against the 1st gen TSX. I think that's a key point, as many feel the 2g TSX is too big while the 1st gen was nearly perfect.

+1

Honda's statement (http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?n...em_id=966677):

News on March 11, 2011 (http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?n...em_id=966221):

R&D Plant shut down indefinitely (http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-messa...em_id=967667):

I think it's easy for us to think of things this way. However, the earthquake happened just one year before the launch date of the ILX. Before the official launch date, Honda had already showed the car to the world back in 2011, about 1/2 year after the earthquake. Things had to be pretty much decided by then. I'd imagine that many contracts have already been signed with suppliers for various parts of the ILX. It probably was not worth it or wasn't feasible to delay the launch of the ILX. Acura did say in a technical meeting that they would put the ED into the ILX as soon as they are ready, not necessarily waiting for MMC.

 

it's not all about power to weight distribution. the 2.4l with direct injection in the new accord has a much flatter (broader) torque curve which would improve performance feel for say urban driving. The current 2.0 in ILX is just a 1.8L from the civic with a longer stroke for higher displacement.

but i have a feeling a bigger engine won't solve the ilx problem. Most honda shoppers are looking for utility (cargo space, back seat room, fuel economy). simply changing the engine won't solve this issue. I think Acura should focus on improving the TSX now which has a better potential for sales.

 

Just some input for thought

The 2012 TSX
In Edmunds testing, a manual four-cylinder TSX sedan loped to 60 mph from a standstill in an unremarkable 7.7 seconds.
The automatic sedan and Sport Wagon both crossed the lights about a second slower.
(The ILX manual makes 60 in 7.1 sec; the 2.0L makes it in 9 sec.. that's ONLY .3 seconds slower.. BUT it's 50 less hp.)

In Edmunds brake testing, both the four- and six-cylinder versions of the TSX stopped from 60 mph in 133 feet.
(The ILX manual 2.4 stops @ 130 feet; the 2.0L @ 121 feet)

EPA fuel economy estimates for the four-cylinder automatic TSX sedan are 22 mpg city/31 mpg highway and 26 combined; the manual version drops to 21/29/24.
(The ILX Manual makes 22/31/25; the ILX 2.0L makes 24/35/28)

So, in short there is nothing to complain about. You'd never notice on a butt-dyno or highway pass the .3 slower 0-60 from the "appropriate 201hp for it's class" vs the 150hp underpowered sedan. You would be stopping 12 feet sooner which is the difference in a dramatic crash. And, you get 2 more mpg... all of which can be had for $3000 (or more) dollars less than a TSX. That's not to mention you get a car that is styled for 2013 and not 2004-2009, and you gain the simple technology features of '13 like push button start and keyless entry.. I don't get all the fuss and I am not saying the ILX doesn't need improvement but..

I haven't seen many of the Canadian members complain about the motor.. Maybe it really is an American thing that you feel more warm and fuzzy about the size of your wee-wee if you say you have a 2.4L over a 2.0L? I mean really.. .3 seconds??


**All of this information is based on Edmunds testing information for fairness and if anyone has information that can contradict this I'd love to see it. Typically Edmunds is high on their times.**

 

Not to nit-pick, because I prefer the ILX to the current TSX.
But 2.4 ILX 7.1s v 2.0 ILX 9.0s looks like 1.9 seconds, not 0.3.

Even then, 2 seconds to 60 isn't a massive difference.
Noticeable, sure, it's similar to going from my 3.2V6 TL to my wifes 1.7 I4 Civic.

 

He is saying the auto tsx vs auto ilx is only a .3 second difference, lol.

 

The ILX 2.4L 6-speed is faster than the 2.4L TSX 6-speed.
The ILX 2.0L AT is .3 seconds slower than the 2.4L TSX AT.
That was the comparison at hand. People are complaining that the 2L is underpowered but compared to what? The 2.4L TSX was barely faster and you can tell me your butt dyno feels the .3 second difference?
My main point of that wasn't from ILX to ILX.. it was comparing apples to oranges since everyone is caught up in this whole "I am gonna read a review and regurgitate everything the reviewer says".. The "underpowered" 2L is only .3 seconds slower than the car it's replacing.. which Acura is right.. that being the case you would feel the acceleration is on par with the TSX.. because it is.

To your point.. of course the ILX 2.4L 6-speed is significantly faster than the 2L. You add 50hp 20lbs of tq and the manual gear box and it makes a huge difference. Look at the difference from AT TSX to MT TSX and thats with the same motor*.

*Before anyone nit-picks that.. I understand they are different variations..

 

The ILX 2.0 has enough power to get moving. However, a lot of people and/or potential buyers only look at the rated horsepower and become disappointed. They see 150hp, then look at the Buick Verano, and that has 180hp. Despite the fact that both cars have similar power to weight ratio, most people would only focus on the horsepower rating when they want to check out the performance of the car.

The 1G TSX was successful because of its nearly perfect dimensions, European driving feel, attractive pricing, and 200hp rating. People see the value in that car.

Acura is trying to replicate the success of the 1g TSX with the ILX. I think the styling is great, its features are adequate (can be better though), and its price range is fine. The main concern is the perceived horsepower rating. 150hp reminds people of economy cars unfortunately. Give it 180+hp and people should be more than happy. That's why I think putting the Accord's I4 engine into the ILX would make sense. The ILX will be a fairly quick car with it.

 

I agree 100%. Thing is Honda/Acura has always used lightweight vehicles with low horsepower ratings and solid fuel economy. Why all the sudden are Acura customers so caught up on it..? The ED i4 would be ideal with the new transmissions; should give more power and better MPG. But, I still dont see anything WRONG with the 2L (besides like you said perception).

 

I got a base ILX as a loaner from the dealer and it moves well. Engine is quite smooth and no way does it feel underpowered, especially in S mode. I can tell you it's got much more get up and go than my 2002 base rdx but the ILX lacks the fun around the curves due to light steering. The ride was a little harsh day 1, but I quickly got used to it. I wouldn't say i found any one thing on the car which made me want to go out and purchase it but if it goes 150K with minimal issues for you owners it may still have a little acura magic. It's unfortunate people just look at the 2.0 numbers without a second look.

 

Rolling out of my TL lease into a base ILX was culture shock.
M.I.D. is saying 28+ mpg's in the city with my light footed driving.
I'll take that all day long!

 

What did the TL get in the city? High teens to low twenties?

 

22MPG
23 on good days

 

if my 04 TSX has 200hp why cant acura just give it up and have the ILX come with that? seriously it ain't costing them anymore to make that engine.

 

because with an automatic your car is only rated 20/29 mpg
The only 0-60 I could find for an automatic says 7.9...

Why does it matter if the 150hp motor is just as fast (a bit over 1 second slower BIG WHOP) but gets 7 more mpg than yours??????????

***JUST FOUND THIS ON ACURAZINE
2004 TSX AT

Consumer Reports
0-60 - 9.2
1/4 mile- 17.1

So, your 200hp TSX could potentially be slower than the underpowered 150hp ILX...
but as far as I know there is only 1 listing for the ILX 2.0's 0-60 and it's at 9seconds. Obviously it could go higher/lower depending on the situation... but obviously the TSX you're refering to is about the same case.

 

At this point the good MPG of the 2.0 was why we went with that engine. We came out of a 1.8 Civic and can actually say there is more power on the ILX 2.0 Tech. 0-60 times are not the reason to buy this car. It is a great highway cruiser. We addressed the road noise with some FatMat and so far this has been a big step up in comfort from the 2009 Civic Navi.

 

^ WHAT HE SAID... + if you're concerned with having 200hp, a good 0-60 and are less concerned with MPG.. you can sacrifice those MPGs and (with great driving) hit 6.4 to 60 and run a 15 flat 1/4 mile time in the manual ILX... significantly faster than your AT TSX and even the 04' Manual TSX... AND achieve better MPG than both.

 

good points. just felt like throwing some fuel to the fire of this discussion. i like the ILX. i have driven it multiple times as a loaner and its a great car.

 

I agree, love the ILX for all the reasons you mentioned. I also get a kick out of the boy racer types, this base ILX provides great MPG and moves well in traffic. If I wanted a fast car that handled great I would want something that was rear or AWD and did 0-60 in under 4.5 seconds.

 

IMO the ILX is a better big city car than the TSX. Much easier to park and fit in small spaces, cheap to fill up and good mileage, and almost as much interior room. I *do* wish it had the blind spot warning system that's on the new Honda's.