So after much deliberation, I have decided to buy an Acura TSX. I wanted to hear from people on tdub of their experiences / grievances about the ownership of a TSX. Other cars that I considered were: Audi A4 quattro (2.0T) and Mitsubishi Spyder. Acura left the other cars behind in standard features. But I want to hear from you folks about the performance of Acura.. it does 205hp @ 7000 rpm while an Audi (v6) can do a 200hp @ 5100 rpm!! And so does the 2007 Mitsubishi spyder (GT - 260hp @ 5750)!! Too bad, the Spyder doesn't have enough space in the backseat and doesn't look as good with the roof on.
How much should the acura be revved up to give noticeable performance?? Are you folks happy with it?

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 10:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2006 10:18:04 PM

you bought a 4 door front wheel drive and your worried about performance?


ibtl

4/25/2006 10:19:54 PM

and your comparing it to an AWD v6 and an open top v6 mitsujunkshi?

4/25/2006 10:23:13 PM

gg on choosing the acura though

ibtl

4/25/2006 10:23:56 PM

^ Yes that is the point. I wanted to know w.r.t performance, how much of a difference is there between a v6 and a v4 and between an AWD and FWD. And wanted to hear about any TSX grievances.

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 10:29 PM. Reason : never mind the spyder!]

[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 10:31 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2006 10:27:45 PM

this is not the place to ask

go to http:http://www.honda-tech.com if you want that kind of feedback

im not h8N, im just sayin...

4/25/2006 10:35:19 PM

i drove a tsx a few months back and liked it, it was pretty quick and felt like a well put together car. granted its not an all out performance machine but for day to day driving it more than gets the job done.

4/25/2006 10:50:01 PM

if you are a good enough driver there is no need for a "performance car"

4/25/2006 10:57:05 PM

good drivers drive an NSX


[Edited on April 25, 2006 at 11:04 PM. Reason : -]

4/25/2006 10:59:24 PM

and HNICs

4/25/2006 11:00:58 PM

you dont have to be a good driver to drive an NSX

4/25/2006 11:02:41 PM

in japan, NSX drives you

4/25/2006 11:20:21 PM

roommate has a 2005 - he loves it

4/25/2006 11:32:29 PM

first off, its an Eclipse.

secondly, why don't you cover the basics about your new car before trying to learn performance tips. You know, things like what kind of engine you have.

4/25/2006 11:48:54 PM

Haha, he said v4.


Dumbass.

4/26/2006 12:55:50 AM

audi is a better choice if you want performance..... one call to black forrest
or apr and your audi will handle like a champ and run pretty fast too.
awd biatch

4/26/2006 1:06:31 AM

I give this thread a 9/10

4/26/2006 2:52:11 AM

audi is a better choice if you like nice looking cars with expensive repair bills

4/26/2006 2:54:41 AM

I don't know why people brag about shitty expensive cars.

Aftermarket is where it's at anyway

4/26/2006 3:14:20 AM

audi all the way

4/26/2006 3:59:45 AM

get manual IS250

4/26/2006 8:28:19 AM

the 2.0T a4 does not have a v6, it has a turbo 4 cylinder

4/26/2006 8:58:18 AM

Quote :

"you dont have to be a good driver to drive an NSX"

now, ya gotta point there.

4/26/2006 9:22:23 AM

i have a 2004 TSX (pearl with tan leather). absolutely love it.

pros:
- i get around 30mpg running 87 on my daily driving (i did a 9 tank series of tests driving the same speeds and same route using 87-89-93 and found no real difference in 93 versus 87, or at least not worth the extra $0.30/gal).
- it is fun to drive and comfortable and quiet at 75+. my husband has a 2003 accord EX (v6 with leather) and tho he has more hp, mine feels more sporty.
- the interior is comfortable and fairly ergonomic. lots of nice comfort features - heated seats, perforated leather, wood grain, moon roof, etc.
- i have 42,000 miles on it and so far, not one trip to the shop (other than normal maintenance).
- get tons of compliments on the looks and since there aren't 5billion of them out (yet), it is pretty easy to spot in a parking lot.
- trunk room. actually pretty impressive for the size car. btw - get the trunk liner. definitely worth the money.

cons:
- methinks they should have thrown the accord v6 engine in it instead of the modified 4cyl. husbands accord has more get up and go. mine is "quicker" but his has more "umph".
- back seat room. fine for me since i rarely have anyone riding back there. but it is a little small.
- manual seat adjustment on the passenger side. i think they corrected this in the 2005.
- button lights on the radio are not lit so you have to feel around for the right 1, 2, 3, cd, etc buttons. they may have corrected this on later models.

i looked around a lot for my car. compared several different vehicles in the 27k-35k range. loved the tl but thought it is to a little big for what i wanted. but honestly, i found the tl and the tsx to be the best bang for the buck. thoroughly pleased with my choice.

another car to look at is the accord ex. cheaper than the tsx with pretty much all the same features plus the v6 engine. but of course the tsx is prettier

[Edited on April 26, 2006 at 9:42 AM. Reason : er]

4/26/2006 9:39:07 AM

audi

4/26/2006 9:48:41 AM

Quote :

"methinks they should have thrown the accord v6 engine in it instead of the modified 4cyl. husbands accord has more get up and go. mine is "quicker" but his has more "umph"."

congratulations! you have learned the value of torque!

Quote :

"found no real difference in 93 versus 87, or at least not worth the extra $0.30/gal). "

i'm surprised your engine doesn't call for 93. you will still be able to run 87 if you prefer but there will be a loss of power. besides, aren't you the same sassy female bragging about shell v-power and it's cleaning characteristics? i was under the assumption that the v-power detergents were only in 93.?.?

Quote :

"buy shell, k?"

4/26/2006 9:50:27 AM

^

haha it may call for 93 (dunno, never looked) but the rule of thumb is use the lowest octane until you get spark knocking. mine runs just fine on 87. sure, i may lose a little power but i drive in cruise control set at 77mph 95% of the time so i wouldn't really notice.

and yes, v-power does have a nice additive package. but hey, i don't feel like paying over $3/gal any more than anyone else.

oh, and buy shellexxon, k. i'm swapping jobs

4/26/2006 10:09:48 AM

you won't get spark knock on your engine since the timing is computer controlled, silly. you'll just get a loss of performance.

Quote :

"haha it may call for 93 (dunno, never looked"

just look at the fuel gauge or inside the gas door. it should say, "premium fuel only" if 93 octane is recommended. if not, it'll just say, "unleaded fuel only".

4/26/2006 10:14:30 AM

you can't go wrong by gettin the TSX, i however love my a4

One of my good friends has a TSX and loves it, its a good all around car

4/26/2006 10:22:50 AM

^^haha ok ok. even still, it performs just fine for my needs on 87. and gets decent gas mileage.


[Edited on April 26, 2006 at 10:26 AM. Reason : maybe i could add some stickers to make up for the loss in hp ]

4/26/2006 10:25:20 AM

just some information you might find useful...

Quote :

"Since your car requires premium gasoline, if you habitually use lower octane gasoline because the engine exhibits no sign of knock, you're outsmarting yourself. By retarding the ignition timing, the ECU prevents abnormal combustion and knock, which allows vehicles designed for premium fuel to run reasonably well on lower-octane fuel. Thus, drivers need not worry about the damage associated with abnormal combustion if high-octane fuel isn't available or if they get the occasional "bad" tank of gas. While this removes the immediate hazard, it's a bad idea to make a habit of running a vehicle on gasoline of lower than recommended octane. Retarding the ignition timing makes the fuel/air mixture richer; combustion is less complete, which lowers fuel economy, allows unburned hydrocarbons to pollute the air, fouls the catalytic converter allowing further pollution and causes the engine to run hotter, reducing its longevity. The knock-sensor provision is a mixed blessing. Without it, drivers would know something is wrong. The money you save by pumping low- grade fuel into a car that demands higher octane is lost anyway in decreased fuel economy and possibly gradual damage."

4/26/2006 10:40:22 AM

^ good info that i didn't know about. i'll still run 87 tho. gas mileage, i'm already about at the epa advertised and i didn't see noticeable increases when i ran 93. long-term, meh, i'll be trading it in in a year or so. (awful attitude i know). thx tho.

4/26/2006 10:43:58 AM

^it's 30 cents a gallon. imho, if you're going to be picky about a few extra dollars each time at the pump, you should be driving a honda instead of your acura.

4/26/2006 10:58:04 AM

haha, okay. I hear you. 3.09 or whatever premium is right now is ridiculous for a gallon of gas.

4/26/2006 10:58:30 AM

^^haha for the amount i drive that is more than a few hundred dollars per year. i drive what i like to drive. i think it is my decision about what i "should" drive and how i choose to drive it. and it functions to my liking with 87 in it. so i will just continue driving my acura with 87 in it.

anyway! the TSX is an awesome car and i highly reccommend it. i choose to run 87 and have no problems doing so (at this point in my 42,000 miles). you can make your own decision about that if you choose to purchase the vehicle. good luck and happy car hunting.

[Edited on April 26, 2006 at 11:22 AM. Reason : k, no more arguing about octane and compression ratios. difft topic, difft thread.]

4/26/2006 11:19:54 AM

Quote :

"Since your car requires premium gasoline, if you habitually use lower octane gasoline because the engine exhibits no sign of knock, you're outsmarting yourself. By retarding the ignition timing, the ECU prevents abnormal combustion and knock, which allows vehicles designed for premium fuel to run reasonably well on lower-octane fuel. Thus, drivers need not worry about the damage associated with abnormal combustion if high-octane fuel isn't available or if they get the occasional "bad" tank of gas. While this removes the immediate hazard, it's a bad idea to make a habit of running a vehicle on gasoline of lower than recommended octane. Retarding the ignition timing makes the fuel/air mixture richer; combustion is less complete, which lowers fuel economy, allows unburned hydrocarbons to pollute the air, fouls the catalytic converter allowing further pollution and causes the engine to run hotter, reducing its longevity. The knock-sensor provision is a mixed blessing. Without it, drivers would know something is wrong. The money you save by pumping low- grade fuel into a car that demands higher octane is lost anyway in decreased fuel economy and possibly gradual damage."

Out of whose ass did you pull this?

1. How can retarding the timing have any real effect on mixture quality? The only way you can affect mixture quality is by varying the ratio of fuel and air; this is a function of injector pulse duration. Oxygen sensor will provide the proper feedback to correct an overly rich condition anyway.

Lower octane fuel ignites and burns more readily; retarding the timing somewhat (usually by ony a couple of degrees; often less) compensates for the faster initial flame front propagation. Smaller engines, by the way, are much less sensitive to octane than larger ones.

2. Combustion is, in my opinion, no less complete with a lower octane fuel. Function of air/fuel ratio and combustion chamber turbulence. All new engine designs are designed to promote as much chamber turbulence as possible for the best charge homogeny and flame front propagation.

I think it's horseshit to use premium if you don't suffer reduced mileage and if power decrease is minimal...this is assuming you're using your car for a-to-b transportation purposes and not for balls-to-the-wall power and sport.

4/26/2006 12:26:52 PM

Look bro.

You bought a very nice car, great performance, but its not a sports car and its not a sports sedan.

You could make it handle better and be peppy but at the end of the day you aren't going to catch or hang with real sports sedans short of spending an extra twenty grand.

4/26/2006 2:11:25 PM

I've got an '06 TSX, black on black with the Navi system.


I friggin' love it.

and i run 93 octane in it.



Want to get the windows tinted, but there seems to be an issue with the moulding strips on the windows. Apparently they are more rigid (or lacking felt) and cause hairline scratches on tint. What a pain in the ass.
Any of you TSX owners care to comment on tinting?

4/26/2006 3:48:54 PM

a couple of contradictions here:

Quote :

"cons: - methinks they should have thrown the accord v6 engine in it instead of the modified 4cyl. husbands accord has more get up and go. mine is "quicker" but his has more "umph". - back seat room. fine for me since i rarely have anyone riding back there. but it is a little small. loved the tl but thought it is to a little big for what i wanted."

1 - The accord is a bigger car, so it comes with 4-cyl and 6-cyl engines. The TSX is smaller. If you wanted 6-cyl, you should have gone with the TL, but that was little big for you (same size as Accord).

2 - You complain of back seat room in a small car!!! You want more back seat room but the size of the car to stay the same, like a stretched back compartment? (Because the TL has proportionally more back seat room, but is of course, bigger overall also, and "little big" for you)

[Edited on April 26, 2006 at 5:13 PM. Reason : You can't have your cake and eat it too!]

4/26/2006 4:51:31 PM

look, the guy was asking for opinions people have on here that have tsx's. i have one. i LOVE my car. i realize that i can't have my cake and eat it too. i understand that. those are just my personal opinions on pros and cons of the car. i am sure there is a good reason they didn't put the v6 in there. i was just commenting on it would be nice to have the extra umph that my husband's accord v6 has, especially off the start. i am sure there are other similarly sized vehicles that have v6's. and the back seat room is just a comment. instead of back seat room, they opted for plenty of front seat room and a good trunk, which is a plus but at the expense of the back. another probably good decision by the designers. but the fact is it still has a small back seat. that is a con (to me). i still chose to buy the car.

i chose to not buy the tl because it "felt" too big and because i could get the tsx for quite a few thousand cheaper. and despite the similarities, the tl felt bigger than the accord to me. i don't give a damn about actual sizes. i care about how they feel to me while driving. part of that is window positioning, front seat room, hood length, etc.

anyway, to the poster of the thread, good choice on the tsx. i think you will enjoy the car.

4/26/2006 6:08:17 PM

Thanks for clarifying.

4/26/2006 7:08:12 PM

V-TAK!

4/26/2006 8:54:27 PM

I don't understand why people buy PREMIUM cars, and then bitch about having to use premium gasoline, and then go cheap on their car.

My Integra has 251,000 miles, isn't worth much money anymore, but calls for premium. And thats what I put in it, even though premium around here is $3.43/gal.

4/26/2006 11:13:28 PM

Quote :

"ultra - Aftermarket is where it's at anyway"

- Amen! Which is one of the primary reasons I'm going for TSX. As far as I've heard, the car doesn't incur any repair charges till about 100K miles (as advertised!). And they are throwing in a free tune up after that.

Quote :

"0EPII1 - get manual IS250"

- Great car.. but expensive by ~ $3000

Quote :

"Queti - i have 42,000 miles on it and so far, not one trip to the shop "

- Thanks for sharing that Queti! I hope mine does that well too!

Quote :

"FanatiK - I've got an '06 TSX, black on black with the Navi system "

hey, I am getting the exact same TSX, only without navigation! Mine arrives this Friday and I can't wait! Thx ya'll!

[Edited on April 26, 2006 at 11:17 PM. Reason : /]

4/26/2006 11:17:09 PM

OEM navigation systems suck ass and are overpriced.

Also, I don't care how many miles, but if you have to get a car to a shop within the first 2 years, it isn't a good car.

4/27/2006 12:30:19 AM

Quote :

"1 - The accord is a bigger car, so it comes with 4-cyl and 6-cyl engines. The TSX is smaller. If you wanted 6-cyl, you should have gone with the TL, but that was little big for you (same size as Accord)."

TSX is a rebadged European Accord. I'm not sure if one is bigger than the other.

Anyway, A4 would have been the best performer by far but maintainance would have definately worse

4/27/2006 1:52:35 AM

audis are a bitch to get worked on

but they are very economical besides that

4/27/2006 1:55:53 AM

Quote :

"TSX is a rebadged European Accord. I'm not sure if one is bigger than the other."

Yeah I know that.

But, the NA market Accord IS bigger than the European Accord (TSX) by 8 inches in length.

Heck, the NA market Accord is also 2 inches longer than the TL.

4/27/2006 4:35:55 AM

That's almost as big a difference as the size of my dick.

[Edited on April 27, 2006 at 4:38 AM. Reason : 8 inches]

4/27/2006 4:38:14 AM

ultra said:

Quote :

"OEM navigation systems suck ass and are overpriced."

That's what I used to think until I used this one. Open your mind!

I can input anything by voice with this thing. ANYTHING. and it has lots of POIs. I'm satisfied w/it.

4/27/2006 10:50:23 AM