MSNBC Review of 2009 TSX
04-05-2008, 02:15 PM
#1
Jdubble97
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NoVA
Age: 49
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSNBC Review of 2009 TSX
I think this part of the article pretty much sums up the disappointment many of us have with the '09 re-design:
"Verdict: Like its predecessor, the 2009 Acura TSX is a fun, value-packed sport sedan, but this car is no longer the svelte marvel that originally appealed to us."
Here is the link to the entire article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23939298/
"Verdict: Like its predecessor, the 2009 Acura TSX is a fun, value-packed sport sedan, but this car is no longer the svelte marvel that originally appealed to us."
Here is the link to the entire article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23939298/
04-05-2008, 02:38 PM
#2
I wonder if this MSN reviewers have test drivene the actual vehicle when wrote this?. I have no reason to believe that newer one will be slower than the older one. considering the torque difference, Wider tires and lower profile should ensure handling. fuel economy is already better with new. add to this better sound insulation. Only thing is price but no one is expecting prices to remain static over 5 year period considering the content. $26,000 in 2004(Actually 2003) is much more than 29,000 price that he is reporting for cars bought in 2008.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23939298/
That fitter, trimmer world model was sitting idle, and so keeping with the sports coaching philosophy of finding ways to get talented players into the game, the company renamed the Honda Accord everyone else gets as the Acura TSX and found plenty of Americans who appreciated the virtues of its svelte size, taut handling, accessible price and frugal fuel economy. Sharp, distinctive styling that strongly evoked the red-hot TL was another plus in a segment overstuffed with generic, forgettable designs
That fitter, trimmer world model was sitting idle, and so keeping with the sports coaching philosophy of finding ways to get talented players into the game, the company renamed the Honda Accord everyone else gets as the Acura TSX and found plenty of Americans who appreciated the virtues of its svelte size, taut handling, accessible price and frugal fuel economy. Sharp, distinctive styling that strongly evoked the red-hot TL was another plus in a segment overstuffed with generic, forgettable designs
04-05-2008, 02:40 PM
#3
This should put to rest any doubts about Honda Diesel and it is not from some iffy magazine who does not have anything to do with Car testing. Remember it is 2003?
http://www.topgear.com/drives/B5/A6/...sts/15/01.html
Honda's winning Indycar engine programme, and also the man credited with inventing VTEC was assigned to head up this diesel project. But by Mr Nagahiro's own admission, initially this wasn't a job he wanted due to the un-glamorous disposition of the 'd' word. But with the brief to make the diesel behave as much like a petrol engine as possible, he and his team got stuck in and have succeeded with flying colours.
Firstly, I'd defy any Accord i-CTDi passenger not already 'primed' to even notice that this was a diesel engine. If you listen very carefully at start-up and at very low rpm you might just hear a split-second's worth of telltale d-noise, but otherwise not. And, from inside the cabin especially, although this lump doesn't sound exactly like a petrol engine, it doesn't sound like a diesel either; so even if pushed, I reckon most folk would guess it was a petrol. And at speed, even way above 100mph, which I might add is a complete doddle, this Accord remains so smooth, quiet and unobtrusive that you'd just assume it was petrol-powered, and possibly a six-cylinder one at that.
Of course, any semi-alert driver would notice something was up because there's such usable, accessible power at ridiculously low rpm. Honda claims 138bhp at 4,000rpm but, more importantly, torque of 251lb ft at 2,000rpm. Now, let's see, that's a bit less bhp than the class-leading Mercedes 220CDi and Renault 2.2 dCi units (both 150bhp), but the Honda equals the Merc and betters the Renault on torque, while at the same time running on a meagre - for a diesel - 16.7:1 compression ratio. And why the low cr? Because a higher ratio, while being good for peak power, is detrimental to quietness and smoothness.
Out on the road there's no discernible powerband - no thump in the back at a particular engine speed, just a strong, clean power delivery from just over tickover to the 4,500rpm red line. Additionally, this engine already complies with the extremely stringent Euro 4 emissions regs for 2005 without the use of a particulate filter, (currently under development). And in case that doesn't impress you, then it also means you could be paying less in company car tax. As for mpg, how does 52.3 on the combined cycle grab you?
In short, this engine was worth the wait. But now I'm thinking; unless Type-R style performance is your priority, just what are the advantages of a petrol engine?
Honda's winning Indycar engine programme, and also the man credited with inventing VTEC was assigned to head up this diesel project. But by Mr Nagahiro's own admission, initially this wasn't a job he wanted due to the un-glamorous disposition of the 'd' word. But with the brief to make the diesel behave as much like a petrol engine as possible, he and his team got stuck in and have succeeded with flying colours.
Firstly, I'd defy any Accord i-CTDi passenger not already 'primed' to even notice that this was a diesel engine. If you listen very carefully at start-up and at very low rpm you might just hear a split-second's worth of telltale d-noise, but otherwise not. And, from inside the cabin especially, although this lump doesn't sound exactly like a petrol engine, it doesn't sound like a diesel either; so even if pushed, I reckon most folk would guess it was a petrol. And at speed, even way above 100mph, which I might add is a complete doddle, this Accord remains so smooth, quiet and unobtrusive that you'd just assume it was petrol-powered, and possibly a six-cylinder one at that.
Of course, any semi-alert driver would notice something was up because there's such usable, accessible power at ridiculously low rpm. Honda claims 138bhp at 4,000rpm but, more importantly, torque of 251lb ft at 2,000rpm. Now, let's see, that's a bit less bhp than the class-leading Mercedes 220CDi and Renault 2.2 dCi units (both 150bhp), but the Honda equals the Merc and betters the Renault on torque, while at the same time running on a meagre - for a diesel - 16.7:1 compression ratio. And why the low cr? Because a higher ratio, while being good for peak power, is detrimental to quietness and smoothness.
Out on the road there's no discernible powerband - no thump in the back at a particular engine speed, just a strong, clean power delivery from just over tickover to the 4,500rpm red line. Additionally, this engine already complies with the extremely stringent Euro 4 emissions regs for 2005 without the use of a particulate filter, (currently under development). And in case that doesn't impress you, then it also means you could be paying less in company car tax. As for mpg, how does 52.3 on the combined cycle grab you?
In short, this engine was worth the wait. But now I'm thinking; unless Type-R style performance is your priority, just what are the advantages of a petrol engine?
04-05-2008, 03:38 PM
#5
Cruisin'
Join Date: Sep 2005
Age: 74
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LaZyPiGgY
So true, the compact size was one of the points that made me interested in the TSX in the first place.
04-07-2008, 04:31 PM
#7
Originally Posted by freeperjim
It lost the appeal of the smaller, personal 2+2 size which made the BMW 3-series so popular.
Trending Topics
04-07-2008, 11:09 PM
#8
I believe the TSX will be a big seller. Possibly "hot-cakes" status. Reason?
1. Price. 3series > IS250 > TSX. It just doesn't compare. And the IS is smaller than a motorcycle.
2. Gas Mileage. Some people will look at this with $4/gallon
3. Value. The only things this car doesn't have is key less entry and radar cruise...
Besides, a 1series coupe (bigger engine) goes for $39K with the same features (minus the bigger engine), and a loaded 2008 3 series approaches $45K...
Does the TSX need a Turbo 4 or even a 3.2L V6. YES! Now bring it....Acura
1. Price. 3series > IS250 > TSX. It just doesn't compare. And the IS is smaller than a motorcycle.
2. Gas Mileage. Some people will look at this with $4/gallon
3. Value. The only things this car doesn't have is key less entry and radar cruise...
Besides, a 1series coupe (bigger engine) goes for $39K with the same features (minus the bigger engine), and a loaded 2008 3 series approaches $45K...
Does the TSX need a Turbo 4 or even a 3.2L V6. YES! Now bring it....Acura
04-08-2008, 08:57 PM
#9
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by static808
I believe the TSX will be a big seller. Possibly "hot-cakes" status. Reason?
1. Price. 3series > IS250 > TSX. It just doesn't compare. And the IS is smaller than a motorcycle.
2. Gas Mileage. Some people will look at this with $4/gallon
3. Value. The only things this car doesn't have is key less entry and radar cruise...
Besides, a 1series coupe (bigger engine) goes for $39K with the same features (minus the bigger engine), and a loaded 2008 3 series approaches $45K...
Does the TSX need a Turbo 4 or even a 3.2L V6. YES! Now bring it....Acura
1. Price. 3series > IS250 > TSX. It just doesn't compare. And the IS is smaller than a motorcycle.
2. Gas Mileage. Some people will look at this with $4/gallon
3. Value. The only things this car doesn't have is key less entry and radar cruise...
Besides, a 1series coupe (bigger engine) goes for $39K with the same features (minus the bigger engine), and a loaded 2008 3 series approaches $45K...
Does the TSX need a Turbo 4 or even a 3.2L V6. YES! Now bring it....Acura
04-10-2008, 06:53 PM
#10
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
This should put to rest any doubts about Honda Diesel and it is not from some iffy magazine who does not have anything to do with Car testing. Remember it is 2003?
Now if only it wasn't bigger, more expensive, and didn't have that stupid grill.
04-10-2008, 07:22 PM
#11
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Age: 36
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bigtimebooch
Did I read that correctly? 251 lb-ft of torque 2000 RPM?! So the diesel actually has some pick-up in the low RPM (the ones where you actually spend most of your time)? Shouldn't we be excited? It's only every other day someone complains about the low end torque in the TSX...not that it isn't without merit. Too bad the diesel option probably costs more and diesel costs even more than premium gas.
Now if only it wasn't bigger, more expensive, and didn't have that stupid grill.
Now if only it wasn't bigger, more expensive, and didn't have that stupid grill.
As for fuel economy, the combined rating advantage for the Euro diesel is about 29% over the 2.0L gas engine and about 50% over the 2.4L engine that is basically what the TSX has. Of course if we get a higher output diesel, the efficiency will drop somewhat, but I think it's safe to expect a 180 HP diesel to have an efficiency advantage of about 35% over the current 201 HP gasser.
Using a fuel station near me as an example: 4.13/gal for premium, 4.35/gal for diesel. This has to be the comparison, because the TSX requires premium for the gas engine. And for ease of numbers, say the new TSX is 25 mpg combined, and the diesel will be 35% higher, 33.75 mpg.
x miles * (4.13/gallon / 25 mpg - 4.35/gallon / 33.75 mpg) = fuel cost diff
After 12,500 miles: $454
After 25,000 miles: $907
After 50,000 miles: $1,816
After 100,000 miles: $3,631
I cannot see the price premium of the diesel TSX being any more than that (probably more like 2-3k, though it's tough to say what Acura will choose to do). So after 50-100k miles the price difference will be wiped out. There are other cost factors related, though. The maintenance costs of the diesel may be higher, but I don't know how much higher. Also, in California diesel cars are exempt from smog checks, so no smog cost or hassle.
For me it comes down to this: with the fuel efficiency of the diesel, it should be similar in terms of cost to the gas engine as long as diesel doesn't keep sharply increase (I'll be watching prices over the next year). Diesels are strong, durable engines, and provide tremendous waves of power at the low RPM range (imagine 300 ft-lb at 2000 RPM!). This makes passing cars in town and during everyday driving much easier. I like the advantages of diesel, so if the cost pencils out, I would choose it over gas. To each their own, but I prefer diesel.
04-11-2008, 09:03 AM
#12
Originally Posted by LaZyPiGgY
So true, the compact size was one of the points that made me interested in the TSX in the first place.
As for the Diesel engine, I can't wait until we start to get diesels again. I wish Honda would just put a turbo on the current engine (the 150bhp one) and thus bump it up to 180-190 without sacrificing the niceties of a small diesel engine. Then again, the Accord with the 150bhp Diesel engine did quite well in recent tests, so I don't know.
04-11-2008, 11:02 AM
#13
Advanced
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by spurfan15
Ya, that is correct. In fact, the new Euro Accord diesel outputs 258 ft-lb torque @ 2000 RPM. Some net sources have also been saying the US diesel for the TSX will be higher output -- TOV says ~180 HP up from ~150 HP on the Euro. If that is the case, we can expect the torque to increase too. That increase would probably result in about 300 ft-lb torque for the US engine.
As for fuel economy, the combined rating advantage for the Euro diesel is about 29% over the 2.0L gas engine and about 50% over the 2.4L engine that is basically what the TSX has. Of course if we get a higher output diesel, the efficiency will drop somewhat, but I think it's safe to expect a 180 HP diesel to have an efficiency advantage of about 35% over the current 201 HP gasser.
Using a fuel station near me as an example: 4.13/gal for premium, 4.35/gal for diesel. This has to be the comparison, because the TSX requires premium for the gas engine. And for ease of numbers, say the new TSX is 25 mpg combined, and the diesel will be 35% higher, 33.75 mpg.
x miles * (4.13/gallon / 25 mpg - 4.35/gallon / 33.75 mpg) = fuel cost diff
After 12,500 miles: $454
After 25,000 miles: $907
After 50,000 miles: $1,816
After 100,000 miles: $3,631
I cannot see the price premium of the diesel TSX being any more than that (probably more like 2-3k, though it's tough to say what Acura will choose to do). So after 50-100k miles the price difference will be wiped out. There are other cost factors related, though. The maintenance costs of the diesel may be higher, but I don't know how much higher. Also, in California diesel cars are exempt from smog checks, so no smog cost or hassle.
For me it comes down to this: with the fuel efficiency of the diesel, it should be similar in terms of cost to the gas engine as long as diesel doesn't keep sharply increase (I'll be watching prices over the next year). Diesels are strong, durable engines, and provide tremendous waves of power at the low RPM range (imagine 300 ft-lb at 2000 RPM!). This makes passing cars in town and during everyday driving much easier. I like the advantages of diesel, so if the cost pencils out, I would choose it over gas. To each their own, but I prefer diesel.
As for fuel economy, the combined rating advantage for the Euro diesel is about 29% over the 2.0L gas engine and about 50% over the 2.4L engine that is basically what the TSX has. Of course if we get a higher output diesel, the efficiency will drop somewhat, but I think it's safe to expect a 180 HP diesel to have an efficiency advantage of about 35% over the current 201 HP gasser.
Using a fuel station near me as an example: 4.13/gal for premium, 4.35/gal for diesel. This has to be the comparison, because the TSX requires premium for the gas engine. And for ease of numbers, say the new TSX is 25 mpg combined, and the diesel will be 35% higher, 33.75 mpg.
x miles * (4.13/gallon / 25 mpg - 4.35/gallon / 33.75 mpg) = fuel cost diff
After 12,500 miles: $454
After 25,000 miles: $907
After 50,000 miles: $1,816
After 100,000 miles: $3,631
I cannot see the price premium of the diesel TSX being any more than that (probably more like 2-3k, though it's tough to say what Acura will choose to do). So after 50-100k miles the price difference will be wiped out. There are other cost factors related, though. The maintenance costs of the diesel may be higher, but I don't know how much higher. Also, in California diesel cars are exempt from smog checks, so no smog cost or hassle.
For me it comes down to this: with the fuel efficiency of the diesel, it should be similar in terms of cost to the gas engine as long as diesel doesn't keep sharply increase (I'll be watching prices over the next year). Diesels are strong, durable engines, and provide tremendous waves of power at the low RPM range (imagine 300 ft-lb at 2000 RPM!). This makes passing cars in town and during everyday driving much easier. I like the advantages of diesel, so if the cost pencils out, I would choose it over gas. To each their own, but I prefer diesel.
04-11-2008, 05:04 PM
#14
Instructor
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Age: 36
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bigtimebooch
Ah, interesting...I figured it would cost about 4k more for the option...
In the UK on the previous gen Accord, the EX 2.0L is £21637, the 2.4L is £22537, and the 2.2L diesel is £22577. That's hardly any price premium for the diesel over the 2.4L -- keep in mind it is a smaller engine. That said, the US diesel will require some new emissions equipment, and may end up being more powerful (~180 HP), so it could fetch a larger price premium. My opinion is anything over $2000-$2500 extra is unreasonable for Acura to charge consumers. If they don't want their diesel technology to be dead on arrival, they need to price it reasonably.
Originally Posted by Bigtimebooch
and prices at my local shell station are $3.87 for premium and $4.39 (!) for diesel.
Originally Posted by Bigtimebooch
Let's hope they geared the thing a little better than the current six speed (where 2nd gear is almost worthless, 3rd gear is your best friend, and 6th gear just pisses you off because its so close to 5thgear).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
quanaman
4G TL (2009-2014)
7
01-09-2023 07:33 PM
joflewbyu2
5G TLX (2015-2020)
105
08-18-2019 10:38 PM
ITSJESTER
4G TL Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
17
12-06-2018 02:29 AM
