Oh My...the TSX is JUST GEORGEOUS!

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl
i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

hey, i got nothing against a 4-banger; i own a 00 civic si. there's no denying honda engines fun to drive. i'd wish there's at least an option for it like the accords.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: iamwiz82 please post some dynos of both the V6 and the I4 Honda has. That will quickly tell us which is better. I'd venture to guess that the I4 is completely torqueless and must be revved to holy hell to get that 200HP.

Please read my post above, because it does have a dyno of the TSXs engine. No, it's not a torqueless wonder either. There is no argument as to which engine is better (any dumbass can figure that out), the argument is whether it is needed in this car. The answer is no. If a customer needs a 6, they'll go with the TL. The TSX has been designed for a 4 cylinder engine, a V6 would just fvck up the handling of the car.

i'd call 150lbft of torque gutless, but that is just me.

What does your cherokee make at the WHEELS?!? Trust me, it doesn't make what Jeep says it does.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

hey, i got nothing against a 4-banger; i own a 00 civic si. there's no denying honda engines fun to drive. i'd wish there's at least an option for it like the accords.

Your option is to buy an Acura TL. When the New TL comes out, it'll be the obvious choice for people wanting to step up to a vehicle with more power.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: CraigRT
Looks like a overgrown Protege... the original pics I remember seeing made the car look alot better.... that thing just looks plain... as always nice interior though.

Yea, until you get un close an realize that it's not an econobox. In original pictures?!?!? The TSX has ALWAYS looked the same.

i know it's not an econobox.. but the front end looks like a protege... ALOT like one...

original pictures must have been pre-released pictures, you know, where they put like 20" rims on it and stuff.. it just looks plain now.

 

[BCskunk]

very sweet car man

 

[kenrippy]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
I'd rather save a few $ and buy an Accord coupe V6 with NAV.

I didn't care much for the car. Accords come with an Anti-Virus ???

 

[rubenswm]

Originally posted by: kenrippy

Originally posted by: RossMAN
I'd rather save a few $ and buy an Accord coupe V6 with NAV.

I didn't care much for the car. Accords come with an Anti-Virus ???

hahah

 

[Spac3d]

Originally posted by: RossMAN

Originally posted by: RichieZ

Originally posted by: OS
yeah it definitely looks nice, I'd seriously consider a TSX over an accord simply for the look. Maybe in the coming months you'll be able to haggle off the sticker.

The IS300 is an old design, MSRP is 3K more, and leather/moonroof isn't standard. Those two options alone are another 2K. So if you match up options, the IS is actually 5K more.

I beleive that moonroof is standard, and you can get it for under MSRP. click

Nice link, thanks.

Navigation Model (Limited Availability)
VP Value Package w/Leather Trim Interior
NV Navigation System w/Compass
LD Limited Slip Differential
HH Heated Front Seats
GN Cargo Net
LM Carpeted Trunk Mat
WL Wheel Locks

$35,506 MSRP
$31,528 Factory Invoice
$31,528 Putnam Lexus Internet Price*

How does Lexus NAV compare to Acura's? I've heard that Acura's have the best NAV.

My friend has an LS430 with navigation and it is SWEET. A nice, sexy voice

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: Swanny
I don't really like it. But I'm not sure why...

Maybe because you just don't like overpriced, underpowered sedans that look like an accord that costs $4000 less?

Interior = sw33t though.

haha.

http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carboard&content_code=02414815&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1254330&record=1

overpriced? "For $29K, this car is a hell of a bargain for what you get"
underpowered? "Power felt like plenty (keep the revs above 3K), the engine is smooth, smooth, smooth and the gearbox is typical Honda slick"
looks like an accord? You need some glasses my friend.

Is it not a rebadges Euro Accord? If so, then yes, it does look like an Accord. And my vision is 20/20 thnx.

 

[rubenswm]

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: Swanny
I don't really like it. But I'm not sure why...

Maybe because you just don't like overpriced, underpowered sedans that look like an accord that costs $4000 less?

Interior = sw33t though.

haha.

http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carboard&content_code=02414815&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1254330&record=1

overpriced? "For $29K, this car is a hell of a bargain for what you get"
underpowered? "Power felt like plenty (keep the revs above 3K), the engine is smooth, smooth, smooth and the gearbox is typical Honda slick"
looks like an accord? You need some glasses my friend.

Is it not a rebadges Euro Accord? If so, then yes, it does look like an Accord. And my vision is 20/20 thnx.

I didn't see "Euro Accord." I see "Accord." Correct me if I am wrong but they are two completely different cars, and you and I both know which one you are takling about. ($4,000 less...)

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl
i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: Swanny
I don't really like it. But I'm not sure why...

Maybe because you just don't like overpriced, underpowered sedans that look like an accord that costs $4000 less?

Interior = sw33t though.

haha.

http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carboard&content_code=02414815&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1254330&record=1

overpriced? "For $29K, this car is a hell of a bargain for what you get"
underpowered? "Power felt like plenty (keep the revs above 3K), the engine is smooth, smooth, smooth and the gearbox is typical Honda slick"
looks like an accord? You need some glasses my friend.

Is it not a rebadges Euro Accord? If so, then yes, it does look like an Accord. And my vision is 20/20 thnx.

I didn't see "Euro Accord." I see "Accord." Correct me if I am wrong but they are two completely different cars, and you and I both know which one you are takling about. ($4,000 less...)

So a Euro Accord isn't an Accord just because it has the Euro in front of it?

 

[rubenswm]

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl
i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

Haha. When was the last time that your Car and Driver rates the "sound of car's motor"
20-21 MPG city, that's REAL impressive.. lol.

 

[rubenswm]

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: Swanny
I don't really like it. But I'm not sure why...

Maybe because you just don't like overpriced, underpowered sedans that look like an accord that costs $4000 less?

Interior = sw33t though.

haha.

http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carboard&content_code=02414815&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1254330&record=1

overpriced? "For $29K, this car is a hell of a bargain for what you get"
underpowered? "Power felt like plenty (keep the revs above 3K), the engine is smooth, smooth, smooth and the gearbox is typical Honda slick"
looks like an accord? You need some glasses my friend.

Is it not a rebadges Euro Accord? If so, then yes, it does look like an Accord. And my vision is 20/20 thnx.

I didn't see "Euro Accord." I see "Accord." Correct me if I am wrong but they are two completely different cars, and you and I both know which one you are takling about. ($4,000 less...)

So a Euro Accord isn't an Accord just because it has the Euro in front of it?

Actually, they're completely different cars. I'd reccomend that you read about them. Also it's not just a "rebadged accord.." it would be a rebadged accord type-s.

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl
i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

Haha. When was the last time that your Car and Driver rates the "sound of car's motor"
20-21 MPG city, that's REAL impressive.. lol.

Just because they don't rate it doesn't mean it isn't important. There are many other examples I can think of that matter too, and you know this as well (ones the rags don't rate). Oh and may I ask how much more your 4cyl gets then?

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: Swanny
I don't really like it. But I'm not sure why...

Maybe because you just don't like overpriced, underpowered sedans that look like an accord that costs $4000 less?

Interior = sw33t though.

haha.

http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carboard&content_code=02414815&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1254330&record=1

overpriced? "For $29K, this car is a hell of a bargain for what you get"
underpowered? "Power felt like plenty (keep the revs above 3K), the engine is smooth, smooth, smooth and the gearbox is typical Honda slick"
looks like an accord? You need some glasses my friend.

Is it not a rebadges Euro Accord? If so, then yes, it does look like an Accord. And my vision is 20/20 thnx.

I didn't see "Euro Accord." I see "Accord." Correct me if I am wrong but they are two completely different cars, and you and I both know which one you are takling about. ($4,000 less...)

So a Euro Accord isn't an Accord just because it has the Euro in front of it?

Actually, they're completely different cars. I'd reccomend that you read about them. Also it's not just a "rebadged accord.." it would be a rebadged accord type-s.

Still an accord none the less.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

Actually, my 4 cyl gets MUCH better than that I get about 32mpg in the city and 37/8mpg on the highway. I define that as MUCH better.

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

Actually, my 4 cyl gets MUCH better than that I get about 32mpg in the city and 37/8mpg on the highway. I define that as MUCH better.

I'm aware that there are more efficient 4 cyls out there, as well as more efficient V6s.. which is why I was asking rubenswm. I realize that not every car should have a V6 in it due to carious reasons, but I would sacrifice MPG if the V6 was an option.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

Actually, my 4 cyl gets MUCH better than that I get about 32mpg in the city and 37/8mpg on the highway. I define that as MUCH better.

I'm aware that there are more efficient 4 cyls out there, as well as more efficient V6s.. which is why I was asking rubenswm. I realize that not every car should have a V6 in it due to carious reasons, but I would sacrifice MPG if the V6 was an option.

As I said, the TL is the right car for you then (if you want a V6)

 

[rubenswm]

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl
i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

Haha. When was the last time that your Car and Driver rates the "sound of car's motor"
20-21 MPG city, that's REAL impressive.. lol.

Just because they don't rate it doesn't mean it isn't important. There are many other examples I can think of that matter too, and you know this as well (ones the rags don't rate). Oh and may I ask how much more your 4cyl gets then?

It is important to you. If it was that important to effect a buyer's decision it would be included in a magazine..seeing as people will buy a magazine with information they are seeking. It's obviously not a top priority for people. Anyways I doubt a 2.4L 4-banger sounds "buzzy" as you claim, it's actually a smooth quiet engine. I don't keep track of mileage but I can if you like. Estimated is 25city/31hwy- and I only have to buy 84 octane. I drive a 95 integra by the way.

 

[rubenswm]

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: Swanny
I don't really like it. But I'm not sure why...

Maybe because you just don't like overpriced, underpowered sedans that look like an accord that costs $4000 less?

Interior = sw33t though.

haha.

http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carboard&content_code=02414815&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1254330&record=1

overpriced? "For $29K, this car is a hell of a bargain for what you get"
underpowered? "Power felt like plenty (keep the revs above 3K), the engine is smooth, smooth, smooth and the gearbox is typical Honda slick"
looks like an accord? You need some glasses my friend.

Is it not a rebadges Euro Accord? If so, then yes, it does look like an Accord. And my vision is 20/20 thnx.

I didn't see "Euro Accord." I see "Accord." Correct me if I am wrong but they are two completely different cars, and you and I both know which one you are takling about. ($4,000 less...)

So a Euro Accord isn't an Accord just because it has the Euro in front of it?

Actually, they're completely different cars. I'd reccomend that you read about them. Also it's not just a "rebadged accord.." it would be a rebadged accord type-s.

Still an accord none the less.

wow they have the same name but are they the same car? When you refer to an Accord in the good ol USA I look to the Honda Accord we know. You weren't talking about a Euro Accord because you said $4,000 less..a figure which you wouldn't be able to even calculate since its not sold here.

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

Actually, my 4 cyl gets MUCH better than that I get about 32mpg in the city and 37/8mpg on the highway. I define that as MUCH better.

I'm aware that there are more efficient 4 cyls out there, as well as more efficient V6s.. which is why I was asking rubenswm. I realize that not every car should have a V6 in it due to carious reasons, but I would sacrifice MPG if the V6 was an option.

As I said, the TL is the right car for you then (if you want a V6)

Naw, much too bland for my tastes. Link

I much prefer the looks of the TL. My favorite looking Acura is probably the 94-01 Teg, or even the new RSX. My only problem with those cars is that they are a bit small.

 

[Cfour]

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: Swanny
I don't really like it. But I'm not sure why...

Maybe because you just don't like overpriced, underpowered sedans that look like an accord that costs $4000 less?

Interior = sw33t though.

haha.

http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carboard&content_code=02414815&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1254330&record=1

overpriced? "For $29K, this car is a hell of a bargain for what you get"
underpowered? "Power felt like plenty (keep the revs above 3K), the engine is smooth, smooth, smooth and the gearbox is typical Honda slick"
looks like an accord? You need some glasses my friend.

Is it not a rebadges Euro Accord? If so, then yes, it does look like an Accord. And my vision is 20/20 thnx.

I didn't see "Euro Accord." I see "Accord." Correct me if I am wrong but they are two completely different cars, and you and I both know which one you are takling about. ($4,000 less...)

So a Euro Accord isn't an Accord just because it has the Euro in front of it?

Actually, they're completely different cars. I'd reccomend that you read about them. Also it's not just a "rebadged accord.." it would be a rebadged accord type-s.

Still an accord none the less.

wow they have the same name but are they the same car? When you refer to an Accord in the good ol USA I look to the Honda Accord we know. You weren't talking about a Euro Accord because you said $4,000 less..a figure which you wouldn't be able to even calculate since its not sold here.

Well, you could convert Euros to US
Yes I did refer to the US Accord in my original post regarding price. But if there is a European Accord it still looks like an Accord, and there is no way around that. I never said it was bad looking.

 

[rubenswm]

hehe i suppose you could do that

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: Cfour

Originally posted by: rubenswm

Originally posted by: m2kewl i'd get it if it came in a v6

See, to a common buyer, V6 is always > than 4-cyl. This 4-cyl makes a really great amount of power. We're talking about a sporty fun to drive engine. Why throw a V6 in there to throw off the weight distrubition of this car and destroy the MPG?

Some people might prefer the deeper, more refined sound of a V6 as compared to the buzzing of a 4 cyl. MPG? I get 20-21 MPG in the city and got 29.8 MPG on the highway the last trip I took. I'm willing to bet that your 4cyl doesn't get much better than that, if at all.

Actually, my 4 cyl gets MUCH better than that I get about 32mpg in the city and 37/8mpg on the highway. I define that as MUCH better.

I'm aware that there are more efficient 4 cyls out there, as well as more efficient V6s.. which is why I was asking rubenswm. I realize that not every car should have a V6 in it due to carious reasons, but I would sacrifice MPG if the V6 was an option.

As I said, the TL is the right car for you then (if you want a V6)

Naw, much too bland for my tastes. Link I much prefer the looks of the TL. My favorite looking Acura is probably the 94-01 Teg, or even the new RSX. My only problem with those cars is that they are a bit small.

It this too bland for your tastes?