Notices
News & Rumors Archives Useful threads, previous Cars of the Week, and more.

CNN/Money Review: Acura TSX: Right on target

Thread Tools
 
Old 06-03-2003, 05:14 AM
  #1  
jaje
HC Racer H5
Thread Starter
 
jaje's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: KCK
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default CNN/Money Review: Acura TSX: Right on target

The older TSX threads are too big and too old but here is a good reveiw of the TSX where CNN/Money highly prefer it over the Maxima its closest true competition.

America gets a taste of Europe's Honda Accord. For the price, it's hard to beat.
June 3, 2003: 8:36 AM EDT
By Lawrence Ulrich, Money Magazine

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Long esteemed for consistent quality and value, Honda's luxury division has struggled at times to give its cars consistent personality. It didn't help when Acura cast aside terrific names like the Legend for its current jumble of alphanumeric designations.

Lately, they've been succeeding. Despite it's generic name, the Acura RSX became a winning successor to the Integra, and one of the flat-out best cars you can buy for around $20,000.

Now comes the TSX, Acura's improved take on what lucky Europeans and Japanese know as the Honda Accord -- smaller, sportier, and altogether sexier than the Accord family car sold here.

And while the Acura is working a tight niche here, as an affordable, front-drive alternative to kingpins like the BMW 3-Series, it's hard to think of another sub-$30,000 sport sedan with such a complete game.

Sure, those high-strung rally sedans like the Subaru WRX can whip the Acura in pure performance. But underneath the superhero speed and comic-book styling, they're Clark Kent econoboxes. If you're over 30 and drive one, the message you send is that you live in your parents' basement and fight addictions to burritos, video games and Limp Bizkit.

The TSX, in contrast, is a sport sedan for grown-ups. It's notably nimble and fun to drive, but it's also stylish, luxurious, and impeccably engineered and built. It even makes sense as an affordable family car, as long as you're not regularly cramming six-foot-plus adults into the back seat.

The Acura is about a half-foot shorter than the U.S. Accord, and about two inches narrower, making the rear quarters a bit tight for long-limbed passengers. For comparison, a U.S. Honda Accord offers nearly three inches more legroom in back, and slightly more trunk space, at 14 cubic feet versus the Acura's 13.

In return for less real estate, you get a much better-looking, better-performing sedan. Acura squeezes 40 extra horsepower from the Accord's base 2.5-liter, four-cylinder engine, for a total of 200. A more-sinewy suspension includes a larger rear anti-roll bar, and 17-inch alloy wheels and performance Michelins are standard.

The taut, wedge-shaped body seems conservative at first, but wins you over almost by the hour, until you realize what a truly handsome four-door this is. The pleasing design was heavily influenced by the all-new Acura TL sedan coming this fall.

The interior, in contrast, scores an immediate knockout. Every well-placed knob and switch, every ounce of leather, plastic and metal, makes an impression of absolute quality. The Swiss-watch precision of the clutch, brake and six-speed manual shifter raise a familiar Honda question: Why can't everyone else make them feel so good?

The sole cabin shortcoming was the voice commands for the otherwise solid navigation system, which sometimes balked at following spoken orders. I'd skip the nav unit, which adds $2,000 to the otherwise attractive $26,490 base price.

At that price, the Acura comes loaded with luxury and safety features that cost extra on many competitors, including leather, electronic stability control, a premium 6-CD, 360-watt audio system, and a moon walk's worth of air bags, including side- and side-curtain bags.

The good vibes continue on the road, where the spun-silk engine feels stronger than its 200 horsepower and 166 pound-feet of torque would suggest. There's not much muscle below 2,500 rpm, but thanks in part to variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust valves, the TSX can still hustle from 0-60 mph in less than 7 seconds.

Driving the battle-scarred FDR Drive in Manhattan, a revealing test of chassis integrity and suspension control, the Acura felt notably secure, balanced and confident at any speed. And its granite-solid chassis, also found in the U.S. Accord, resisted squeaks, rattles and vibrations over the nastiest surfaces.

The nicest surprise was how light-footed and fun the TSX felt, considering its 3,230-pounds -- no porker, but still about 120 pounds more than a comparable Accord. It's only when you goad the Acura to its limits, something few drivers will bother doing, that it betrays its front-drive DNA. Carrying 60 percent of its weight over the front axle, compared to rear-drive cars that achieve closer to the ideal 50/50 balance, the TSX can't hammer through curves with as much aplomb as the BMW 3-Series or Infiniti G35.

In its defense, the Acura costs much, much less, and its quality and craftsmanship outstrip several cars in the $30,000-to-$40,000 range. The trade-offs, if they're important to you, are rear-wheel-drive and a V-6 engine.

The new Nissan Maxima is aimed at the same market slice as the TSX: less costly than a BMW, more upscale than a Mazda 6, sportier than a Toyota Camry. But Nissan got lost on its way to the math department. One Maxima I tested ran the tab to a stratospheric $33,000.

The TSX frankly trounces the Maxima, which costs substantially more yet can't touch the Acura's style, luxury, craftsmanship and sporty feel. The Maxima is bigger, and its monster V-6 makes it quicker, but straight-line speed does not a sport sedan make.

For Type-A sedan drivers on a Type-B budget, the winner is the TSX.

2004 Acura TSX
• Rating: 4 Wheels (out of 4 equals perfect score)
• Vehicle type: Front-engine, front-wheel-drive sport sedan
• Engine: 2.5-liter four-cylinder, 200 horsepower, 166 pound-feet torque
• Fuel economy: 23 mpg city/32 highway
• Base price: $26,490
• As tested: $28,990
http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/02/pf/a..._tsx/index.htm
Old 06-03-2003, 05:20 AM
  #2  
Samson
chris is the devil
 
Samson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: so cal 951 + 760
Posts: 8,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

but isnt the maxima a lot bigger? So if someones looking for space, they prolly wouldnt buy the TSX.
Old 06-03-2003, 05:31 AM
  #3  
ur31337
Colby
 
ur31337's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southeastern CT
Posts: 2,150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I was thinking that. Maxima is a luxury sedan, the TSX is a performance sedan.
Old 06-03-2003, 05:33 AM
  #4  
jaje
HC Racer H5
Thread Starter
 
jaje's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: KCK
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Link to the Maxima Article

CNN/Money gave the Maxima a 1 out of 4 wheels: reasons are torque steer is bruteal, maxima is just a slightly better altima for more money, and a fully loaded the maxima can top $35k where it doesn't make sense when you can get a g35 for even less

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/22/pf/a...xima/index.htm
Old 06-03-2003, 06:30 AM
  #5  
kazi
Toyota Racing = Cheaters
 
kazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The article mistated the engine displacement. It's a 2.4L, not a 2.5L.
Old 06-03-2003, 07:22 AM
  #6  
boilers
Senior Member
 
boilers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: somewhere in the mid
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Car and Driver also did a roadtest on the TSX on their July edition. They pretty much like the TSX. I don't think the article is up on their website yet, but here's some summary:

Highs: Engine to copy, transmission to envy, craftmanship to benchmark
Lows: Perfectionist might want better tires, more power
The verdict: A precision peice to desire

Some performance stats:
0-60: 7.2 secs
5-60: 7.7 secs
1/4 mile: 15.6 secs
Old 06-03-2003, 07:38 AM
  #7  
AcuraFanatic
Senior Member
 
AcuraFanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 37,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yeah, I read the C&D article last night, and they said the performance essentially didn't matter as it did everything near perfect.

The CNN article was pretty good too.
Old 06-03-2003, 08:17 AM
  #8  
MrFatbooty
Wannabe yuppie
 
MrFatbooty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I agree with CNN--there's not a single decent reason to buy a Maxima.
Old 06-03-2003, 01:35 PM
  #9  
yianni64
Senior Member
 
yianni64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I'm glad Car and Driver liked it.
Old 06-03-2003, 01:56 PM
  #10  
98CoupeV6
lots and lots of fail
 
98CoupeV6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeetroit
Posts: 23,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

C&D absolutely loved it...they loved it so much that I cannot imagine it not being a 10Best winner.



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:44 AM.