Just because motor week didn't get the time you like doesn't mean they're not credible. It could be weather condition and track condition too you know? Here are some other test made my auto week for you to compare with so it'll be fair, same mag & same track.

2001 330Xi:
0-60 = 6.2sec.
1/4 mile = 14.7sec @ 96 mph
epa mileage = 20/27

1998 323is:
0-60 = 7.3 sec.
1/4 mile = 15.5 sec @ 90 mph

2003 CL-S:
0-60 = 5.9 sec.
1/4 mile = 14.5 sec @ 96 mph
epa mileage = 19/28

2002 NSX:
0-60 = 5.0sec.
1/4 mile = 13.1 sec @ 109 mph
epa = 17/24

2003 G35 sedan:
0-60 = 6.2 sec.
1/4 mile = 14.8 sec @ 95 mph

Those are just some of the tests. Now how can you say their test is not credible when they get those kinds of time for those cars? To analyze their TSX time a little further, if you noticed, the trap speed is @ 90 mph. That just shows that its top end power isn't all that great. So I'm not too surprised w/ the ET of 15.9. If they can't drive, i.e. can't launch, then their trap speed would have been higher. But it seems like they launch it the best they could.

 

The mpg spec isn't too surprising consider the weight. A 4 dr. GS-R gets 24/31 mpg rating. It's also 500lb less and alot less tq and HP. So it's not too surprising.

 

Amazing how they achieved the exact same weather and track conditions, isn't it?

 

I never said it's the same weather and same track condition. But track condition, they can try to get it as consistant as possible. You can never get it exactly the same. I'm just trying to prove that their drive can drive and the time they got isn't too far from what other mag would be getting.

 

Really nice interior.
Nice exterior.
Decent transmission.
OK brakes.
Adequate handling.
Kinda high price.
Bad gas milage.
Weak as hell engine.
Front wheel drive.

Not a sports car by any means, but a decent mid-size car if you aren't looking for a bargain (and are stuck on honda/acura).

 

The way you bring up Autoweek's test brings up my point. Don't go by just one automotive magazine's test time.

 

Feature for feature, load up any C-230, 325, or A4 1.8t to the same specs as a TSX and I guarantee you the TSX will be a better value. In addition, its 4-banger is just as good as any of the European engines, putting out more hp than any of those base engines.

On another note, does anyone remember the Acura RD-X concept shown last year? I just noticed that it carried a 2.4L with IMA to put out 250hp. Maybe thats the same set-up for the TSX-S?

 

Are you on drugs? Okay transmission? WTF? Not a good value? I've never known you to be biased, so maybe you're just dumb. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

I don't think that 27000 msrp is all that great for a car that is more or less a dressed up european accord. I didn't say it was BAD. I just don't think it's "oooh-aaah" great.
Most reviewers say the 6-speed shifter sucks, clutch throw is too long, and it's ratios are too close (much due to the under-powered engine, I assume). The auto is pretty good, though.

 

Read some of the previous posts and maybe you'll find an answer :slap:

BTW, that was a very narrow minded statement.