Find Reviews by Make:
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
From a 1G (2005) TSX owner,
I am not impressed with the addition of a V6 to the TSX.
This completes the transformation of the TSX into a TL. People were constantly clamoring for a V6 in the TSX. The best way to do that was to buy a TL. It takes a larger car to properly support the V6 and that is the TL.
The TSX (in 1G form) is a well balanced car and addition of a V6 just brings more weight, torque steer to the car. Yes, I know torque steer can be cured with SH-AWD but that is even more weight, cost, maintenance.
And another part of this story is that Acura has converted the TL into an RL. I don’t know what they are going to do with the RL. Make it bigger and give it a V8 engine?
But ultimately this dulls my enthusiasm for the TSX when I go shopping for a new car. I guess Acura is abandoning the reasonable sized, good handling, economical field.
Makes sense to me, in the context of the current car. But should the current car have been larger than the original to begin with?
Interesting that they went with a 3.5 instead of resurrecting the 3.2.
Another possible engine (with more power) was the turbocharged I-4 used in the RDX. But I have read that wouldn’t fit under the hood of the TSX. It would still have the torque steer problems probably only curable with the SH-AWD (and more weight).
Anyway the 3.5 is already in production for the TL and RL in slightly different states of tune.
It needs the turbo, not the V6. Why does Acura think it should sell three V6 sedans? Why?
I doubt the TSX needed the V6 engine to be a good car, but it probably did need the V6 engine to differentiate itself from the Civic Si.
The problem is that there is now even less to differentiate the more expensive Acuras from the TSX.
The turbo would have been a good choice if it would fit/work, especially since the RDX sales aren’t doing a very good job of amortizing the turbo’s development costs.
Probably not. It will make the car nose heavy and most likely too expensive when compared to its competitors. What they needed was a sportier suspension and maybe some forced induction (and, of course, a nose job).
I said the same thing when the Aurora got a V6 in its second generation. (Except backwards) Bad move.
The 1G TSX was an interesting car. With RWD, a manual, a tighter steering box, and a lower stance, it could have been a real contender. We had one, and I almost liked it. But my old 535is–twenty years its senior–was still a better driving car (though the AC didn’t work as well!), I think the added weight/ torque steer of the V6 will just exacerbate the fringy handling the G1 already manifested.
Couldn’t they solve the torque steer problem by centering the engine and intalling equal length drive shafts? Like a MINI…
I drove one of those for over a year and it was a 5 star handling car.
No amount of power or cylinders is going to fix the ugly.
The turbo engine had a top-mounted intercooler which didn’t fit.
I agree with Michael – given what the TSX currently is, this makes sense. Look at its sales, it’s becoming Acura’s volume mid-sized model. The TL’s size might not have been an issue if it looked better, but the TSX’s size and styling are apparently popular. So it should have a non-enthusiast V6 auto option.
This isn’t a car for us.
This car doesn’t need tree-flattening torque steer!
It needs a rhinoplasty! (With emphasis on RHINO)
I’m pretty certain Acura heard a lot of bitching from dealers about only having four cylinders in a $30K car, so this isn’t surprising. Still, the last thing Acura need is more cannibalization. At this rate, they might as well have just one six-cylinder car priced in the mid-thirties, aimed at the Infiniti G37 and Lexus ES350. They could call it (wait for it)…Legend.
Enthusiasts will complain, but this is smart business. It’s not like V6-powered, FWD sedans have trouble selling.
I would have prefered a diesel with a stick.
Or better yet, a G35.
Redesign and torque I4 would suffice, but redesign first.
It’s necessary for this version of the TSX, which tells you a lot about what has happened to it.
I actually like big engines in small cars. VW offered VR6 versions of the Golf and Jetta back when they were thoroughly compact. I would have liked to have seen a bigger engine in the last TSX as well, but it didn’t need it. This new one does. It’s bigger, and it has nothing else to hang its hat on.
Look Mom, a Saab!
Really, overpowered front-wheel-drive near luxury brands do sooooo well don’t they? Good job Acura, and goodbye.
Brian E
“It’s not like V6-powered, FWD sedans have trouble selling”
True, but there’s a big difference between a faster Honda Accord and a torque steering BMW competitor.
The Saab joke hurt me deep down inside. Sigh.
Considering that many reviews have indicated that the TSX was a great chassis in need of a bit more power, it would seem to make perfect sense.
SherbornSean wrote:
I would have prefered a diesel with a stick.
The diesel-engine TSX was killed by the economic meltdown.
The TSX V6 was in the pipeline before the meltdown hit, and Acura probably sees the TSX evolving into a 3-Series/A4/ES350 competitor.
It needs the turbo, not the V6. Why does Acura think it should sell three V6 sedans? Why?
Because of knee-jerk auto scribes who bitched about it being down on power (or have cylinder-count hangups) next to the much-more-expensive 325i. The same people say not a whit about the weak-kneed (and much more expensive) C230K, IS250 or 323i. It’s the same people who bitched about Saab 9-3s that, despite their kicking the asses of comparably-priced BMWs, were somehow inferior because they lacked a fifth a sixth cylinder. And yes, I know the 3-Series is much better than the 9-3 in many ways, buy price-for-power was not, until recently, one of them.
It’s like the RL: yes, it doesn’t come with a V8. Neither does the (more expensive) 530i, E350, GS350 or M35, with which it competes. Yes, you could buy a V8 5-Series/E-Class/GS. But that’s not the RL’s competition, is it?
My only hope is that, in doing this to the TSX, it hearkening the return of the small, screaming Acura. And no, I don’t mean the Civic-in-a-nice-suit CSX-S.
The 3.5 engine is just economies of scale talking. However, since the turbo won’t fit, I wouldn’t mind seeing a small V6 instead, with displacement and power similar to a 4-cyl but torquier and smoother. I never drove one but the sweet-sounding 2.5 V6 from the 90’s Mazdas comes to mind.
The 4 with the 6-speed in my 2006 TSX is sweet. I revs freely, pulls strongly from 3,000 up, and sounds great doing so. Did I mention the 25mpg mixed fuel economy I regularly get. I can’t ask for anything more. Why do we need a V6? What about the turbo 4 from the RDX, it might not fit as is but I’m sure they could find a way, seems like a waste of a good engine? If people want a V6 sell them up into a TL.
Sorry mtypex. I spend a lot of time in 9-3’s if it’s any consolation. They really are fast as hell in a straight line once boost is up. Too bad I always end up driving them on back roads.
psarhjinian
I always kind of respected Acura’s low-torque FWD approach. It’s gone, and this (I think) is one more step over the Buick bridge. I don’t follow the brand that closely though, maybe they’re planning a Mini killer? Please?
You are completely correct about the pressure for extra cylinders…pointless with their drivetrains and image.
I never drove one but the sweet-sounding 2.5 V6 from the 90’s Mazdas comes to mind.
The 1.8L V6 in the MX-3 was pretty nifty. Silly, not terribly reliable, not as tunable, but really cool.
I don’t follow the brand that closely though, maybe they’re planning a Mini killer? Please?
I’d be happy with a new Integra. Even a rebadged European Civic Type-R with a nicer interior would be something.
I never drove one but the sweet-sounding 2.5 V6 from the 90’s Mazdas comes to mind.
pOOch: Man, you missed out on one sweet motor. Smooth as proverbial butter, sounded fabulous in the upper rev band.
As far as the turbo not fitting, how hard (cue Jezza) is it to: A) put a bulge in the hood or B) a WRX-style hood scoop. The scoop would also help divert the eyes away from the stupid-ugly nose.
What about the turbo 4 from the RDX, it might not fit as is but I’m sure they could find a way, seems like a waste of a good engine
You’d think that, if Saab could fit a blown 2.3L under the hood of the smaller, lower 9-3 Viggen, Acura could do it in a car with a nearly-twenty-year-newer chassis and powertrain.
Demetri:
The VR6 was also smaller at 2.8L.
Instead of a V6, this car needs a fifth door and a slightly sportier drive. Call it a sport wagon, hatchback, whatever. Acura needs to steal the top-end sales away from the Mazda3, and offer something the other Japanese luxury brands don’t.
This trip was necessary from 2004-2008. Acura missed the bus.
i used to be jealous they did’t sell Acura here, but their current range… no thanks
We have the TSX sold here as the Accord Euro (been the case since the 1st gen TSX) only in 4 cylinder guise and the USA market Accord sold only with the V6 engine. it’s worked really well for Honda selling them side by side, despite sharing the same name and showroom floor.
Can’t blame Honda if this is what the market calls for, but it does seem like a sacrilege.
Soichiro Honda must be spinning in his grave, probably at 7,000 rpm while burning very little fuel.
What would it have taken to attach a turbo to the 2.4 engine in the TSX? I don’t see how the RDX motor would not fit. I think the RDX engine would’ve done wonders in differentiating the TSX from the TL as a lighter (so to speak) more agile car that justifies its lower pricepoint. Acura really missed the boat with this one.
As someone mentioned earlier, the development costs surrounding the RDX engine are not being recouped by the crossover’s sales figures and this would’ve been the perfect opportunity to spread that cost around.
Pig+Lipstick=PIG
Was this trip necessary?
Yes. Look its not as if they are going to stop selling the 4-pot, this is just another option.
An option for those that are running away from the new TL screaming. In pictures it didn’t look that bad to me, but it looked bad. Then I saw one on the road last week. Egads, what a space ship. That thing looked like it was going to emit a tractor beam at anytime and I would have a probe up my butt, PDQ.
The TSX is much more tolerable in comparison. Acura/Honda knows that the TL isn’t a hit. When the G37 coupe first went on sale I saw one one the road paper registration plates within a week. How long as the TL been out? How many have any of you seen?
I don’t wanna hear anything about torque steer. The motor in this one make 280hp and that is fine, I didn’t hear anyone complain about torque steer in the previous TL Type-S (which made 286hp).
The TL is dead. Long live the new TL.
I agree the V6 isn’t consistent with Honda’s traditional emphasis on light weight and efficiency. Soichiro probably wouldn’t like it, and I’d prefer a turbo four myself. So my initial reaction to this news was not positive.
But then I thought about the Saab 9-3, which gained a turbo V6 in 2006, much to the initial dismay of some Saab faithful (like me) who prize the turbo four tradition. As it happens, the V6 does nothing but wonderful things for the 9-3. It adds refinement and a sense of effortless power, without compromising agility much at all, perhaps due to the stiffer suspension in the Aero. Like the 9-3 Aero, this V6 TSX also comes with a stiffer suspension than the four cylinder version, so it could work.
Therefore, provided this V6 doesn’t add TOO much weight over the front wheels, and Acura offers a manual transmission, I think it will be a winner.
And I suspect the manual will arrive within a year. The TL is getting one, and because it uses the same engine, the TL’s upcoming manual should adapt easily to the TSX.
The clamoring for more power in the TSX would have easily been satiated if the 2.3 turbo with auto or also a standard manual tranny. That would have kept weight on the low end and given the car the power it needed and kept torque steer (though the 1g 2.5 na engine still had torque steer problems in areas). I’ve had my instances where our 1g TSX would get out accelerated by a minivan or regular pickups. Was a shame.
But then I thought about the Saab 9-3, which gained a turbo V6 in 2006, much to the initial dismay of some Saab faithful (like me) who prize the turbo four tradition.
The 2.8L six in the 9-3 is a much smaller, lighter engine than the 3.5L motor that Honda’s plucking for this car. That’s one difference.
The other is that the 2.8L six is a big improvement over the Ecotec 2.0L in the 9-3, though not so much over the 2.3L Saab H engine in the 9-5 and prior 9-3 Viggen. The TSX’s four is much, much better than the Ecotec; it’s not such an improvement.
You have a point, though. I’d also argue that while the six is a good engine and the “feel” of instant acceleration and enhanced smoothness is nice, it’s both the final nail in the old TSX’s coffin, and crowds the TL somewhat. I think Acura is losing rationality in it’s branding.
Well as a certain comedian says: you can’t fix stupid. Well in Hondas or rather Acuras case they can’t fix ugly.
A sell out to people who still think bigger is better. The TSX needed a turbo, RWD and hatch would have be nice, but we all know that will NEVER happen. When they announced the RDX came with a turbo I thought “finally Honda/Acura figured it out – fuel mileage PLUS on demand HP” but no, it seems they still don’t understand what would make their cars really fun to drive. The only way a V6 in the TSX makes sense is if the TL was already RWD/AWD.
My wife test drove both the TSX and TL (a few years back before the ugly stick hit them) and the TSX underwhelmed, it was packaged nicely, perfect size/price, great handling… but no grunt compared to our turbo Passat. I sure hope Ford’s EcoBoost catches on, I’ve owned two turbos (an Eclipse GST and a Passat) and both were a blast to drive due to the TQ the turbos gave you down low, but they were still very good on gas provided you keep the revs in check: both got 28 MPG in mixed driving and over 32 on long highway runs.
Can someone please explain to me why all the FWD bitching always applies to Acura but never to Audi???
Acura has now completed the transformation of the TSX from a handsome, well-balanced sport sedan that was actually affordable into a bloated, imbalanced, hideous, over-priced crapmobile.
Because most people buy the quattro model according to my local Audi dealer.
Can someone please explain to me why all the FWD bitching always applies to Acura but never to Audi???
Heritage.
Now, excuse me while I spit whilst saying that.
It’s a good point, and I’ve asked it before: why does Audi get let off the hook for nose-heavy front-drive-derived cars that share DNA with Volkswagens? The only answer I can get is heritage (which applies to Benz and BMW maybe, but not Audi) or that the existence of very large, front-heavy cars with big engines shoehorned into them excuses them from criticism when they throw four rings on a Golf or Passat.
The real reason is snobbery. You can look down your nose at Honda, especially if you own a glitch-ridden German luxury sedan.
WhatTheHel
I certainly don’t give them a free pass, and I’d never recomend an Audi over it’s VW counterpart to an actual driver. Even with quattro the driving feel is very FWD, if mostly because of engine position.
Audi’s are beautiful though, have very, very nice engines and top rate interiors, and they’ve been fixing the flaw with the newest models apparently (haven’t driven the new 40/60 setup myself yet (outside of the R8), so I can’t say if it’s worked).
The old Acura was solid competition for Audi when it came to FWD handling and feel. I’ve driven the old TL and too many A4’s and 6’s to count, the TL was better than the FWD A4’s in that respect. The problem is you can get an Audi that dosen’t torque steer with quattro and I haven’t seen enough SH-AWD Acuras on the road to credit them with the same. Comparing either to a 3-series, as everyone wanted to do with both, was a bad joke though, and discounts any journalist making that opinion known from having their driving impressions taken seriously.