The motor is essentially the same as the 2.4 in our Accord but with "3-rocker i-VTEC" instead of "2-rocker i-VTEC." Essentially the difference is the same as that between the RSX and RSX Type-S. Around town, the motors feel essentially the same until you really open it up. On a test drive it's hard to feel the difference.

If Joe Schmoe car shopper goes to his Honda dealer and drives an Accord EX-L and then heads over to the Acura dealer to drive a TSX that conceivably runs a couple grand more, what's there to get him into the TSX? It probably feels like a more buttoned-down version of the Accord with more nicely proportioned styling. Plus with the money he saves on going with the Accord instead of the TSX he can spring for the navigation system or the V6 which he can tell feels a lot faster. That is the problem.

 

Let's see what happens to the sales numbers of the Accord and the numbers of the TSX before we assume. I agree, though...that is the problem. I'm sure Honda thought of this though, and I'm sure the benefits outweigh the possible cannibilization. I butchered that word. But anyway, you do get extra stuff in the TSX...the 6 speed, for one. They're gonna aim for the enthusiasts with this model, especially with the three hundred and freakin' forty watts of power from its 8 speaker 6CD sound system.

 

I wonder if the Accord will ever see this engine? It wouldn't be tough to do, would cost barely anything (engineering wise), and would provide all the enthusiasts with one of Honda's high revving I4s but still more power than the basic models.

 

I'm only 17, so that may be one of the reasons for my ignorance, but I need help understanding something...

OK, base RSX:

160HP @6500, 141TQ @4000

RSX Type-S:

200HP @7400, 142TQ @6000

Now maybe I'm dumb, but wouldn't the base RSX have the advantage off the line since it's torque is virtually identical to the Type-S but avaliable at 2K RPM less? What's the difference in 1/4 mi. times between the two? Torque is more important than HP for acceleration, right?

The reason I ask is this: So what if the story with the TSX Type-S is the same as with the RSX? Is the Type-S really worth it? Do you think they'll use the 2.4L in the Type-S or a different motor?

:dunno:

 

From 4000-6000rpm, the torque line is essentially flat in the RSX-S. It's not peaky like the Celica GT-S. That's the beauty of the K series motors. Better torque band.

 

It's probably the same reason why Joe Schmoe bought an A4 over a Passat. I don't see the TSX competing against the Accord. The TSX will have more of a sport sedan feel to it. They're two distinctive vertical brands, unlike GM's horizontal branding. There's a reason why customers chose to spend more on an entry level premium over a midsize mainstream model, even if Joe Schmoe gets more out of the mainstream choice.

 

Why are people so critical of the 2.4L motor (what's the code for it again?)?

Also, could someone please provide a link for me to a list of Honda/Acura engine codes? I know my Toyota codes, but not my Honda codes, so I kinda feel confused when you guys use the codes in discussions and I don't know them.

 

It's the K24. A great list (although not current) can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/wyvnz/Engines.html and here: http://www.geocities.com/wyvnz/Engines2.html

 

I love the look of that vehicle, very clean and not awkward like the Accord (at least in some aspects). The interior seems better as well, and tighter suspension and an Acura logo is a plus in my book.

I also generally prefer 4-cylinder engines to V-6 engines. This is potentially a TL replacement for us.

 

thats what i thought made the 40hp difference. makes perfence sense, since 3 rocker made an extra 40hp in the K20.

i like the tsx more. its a smaller, sportier, and most likely lighter car. i think young guys that want to upgrade from their riced out civic now that they have a decent job might have jsut found a car.