Thoughts on TSX coupe

[owequitit]

The Prelude was FF, and it was voted best handling car for under 30K. Back when that happened, 30K was a pretty significant amount of money. The S2000 today would almost slip into that category. Just an example of bitching about FF.

Even the Fit is a niche vehicle. Those aren't mainstream in anyway. How about the hybrids? Those are niche as well, just not seperate models.

The EG is popular today, because you can buy them for a few grand and do anything you want. The EG Si, was a niche model, and never was very popular in terms of total sales.

[AccordWarrior]

I'd be interested to see how the dimensions of the Mazda 6 pairs up with an Altima or an Accord.

It's the high belt-line, high hood trend to comply with Euro crash testing that makes all our cars look so freaking huge.

[HondaB18]

A TSX coupe would be a great idea for the same reasons a 3 Series Coupe and a M-B C class coupe are a great idea.

It gives a larger product fold that appeals to more people.

A TSX Coupe is much more fitting for the Acura line up than the boy racer RSX ever was. They didn't discontinue the RSX because it would interfere with another car, they discontinued it because sales tanked, and it was no longer a viable solution. Acura is moving upscale, and the RSX didn't fit into the strategy.

They also STILL have just about the most loyal customer base in the world. That indicates good corporate health.

Anybody who says that the new Hondas aren't in touch with who they are, hasn't given them a fair chance. The 2006 Accord looks good in person, and much like previous generation Accords (CB7 included) gets flack for being blandly styled. It drives BETTER than a CB7, as well as the competition I have sampled, and some cars costing far more, and it does so without sacrificing the standards of today's consumer. People are too focused on "specifications." 99% of the people on this board should know that it isn't all about "specs", because if it were, the CB7 would be unable to do what it has done.

yes, this is what i was getting at about the tsx coupe. on a side note, mercedes ended production on its c coupe because it wasn't a good selling car so no c coupes anymore

bw best brands

mercedes benz - 10th
toyota - 12th
honda - 18th

sad but true about the specs and not relying on them to get the job done. but numbers sell cars

I'm gonna have to agree to disagree, owequitit.
IMO Honda has lost its way. The cars have grown fatter/heavier and chunkier, and a lot of the cool niche models they had (CRX, del Sol, Prelude) have all gone away or been compromised. IMO when they made a different Accord for the various markets in the 6th generation they lost me. I understand that they have to make money and be competitive, but if a CB7 can seat 5 American adults comfortably why the need for extra room, especially if someone who needs to carry a lot of people/stuff can buy a Pilot/Odyssey?

yes it would be awesome if those car were still in production but the best sellers gets priority. cars nowadays are more efficient then it was a while ago so they are able to make it more fuel efficientcy as well as increase the size of the cars

isnt mazda the ones always breaking down..lol...well they are majority owned by Ford..uhh, i dont like that..

owning and manufactering is two different things

[owequitit]

I'd be interested to see how the dimensions of the Mazda 6 pairs up with an Altima or an Accord.

It's the high belt-line, high hood trend to comply with Euro crash testing that makes all our cars look so freaking huge.

No doubt!

There seems to be a general trend toward more seat elevation, and height, probably driven by our societies call for "sitting up higher." That is the #1 reason I have heard about buying SUV's...

You can't blame the manufacturers for giving people what they want. And these are the people ACTUALLY buying cars and not just sitting around armchair quarterbacking the auto industry.

My Mom's CM is only about 2-3 inches longer than the CB, but it is quite a bit taller when parked next to the CB. The CB is lowered 2" so I think it it about 1.5-2" taller at stock ride height. When you factor in engine size, crush space, the larger trunk, bigger back seat, roomier front seat, etc etc etc, it isn't that much. The CG V6 was about an inch or so longer. The difference is that it felt like it weighed 3500 lbs. The new CM feels like it weighs about the same as a CD, maybe a little less. It isn't much duller in response than my CB is.

The other reason for the more bulbous shapes is the improved aerodynamic efficiency that it provides. Less drastic changes in airflow direction or velocity result in an immediate reduction in drag. By elevating the rear of the hood, raking the windshield further, slightly arching the roofline, or at least giving it a smooth transition, and making everything round and faired, the auto industry has been able to maintain or improve Cd despite an increase in size and surface area.

Unfortunately, it has led to the "pod" shapes we have today.

Luckily, aerodynamics is an evolving art, so they are learning ways to incorporate new shapes and still maintain drag, or lose as little efficiency as possible. The switch to multireflector headlight housings helped this alot believe it or not.

Dimensions: Accord (CB), Accord (CM), Altima, Mazda 6

CB

Length: 186.8

Width: 67.1

Height: 54.7

Wheelbase: 107.1

Curb Weight: 3000 (est)

Cargo volume: 14.4

Front headroom: 38.9

Front Legroom: 42.6

Rear Headroom: 37.5

Rear Legroom: 34.3

CM

Length: 191.1

Width: 71.6

Height: 57.1

Wheelbase: 107.9

Curb Weight: 3435 (EX V6 auto)

Cargo volume: 14.0

Front headroom: 40.4

Front Legroom: 42.6

Rear Headroom: 38.5

Rear Legroom: 36.8

Altima

Length: 192.3

Width: 70.4

Height: 57.9

Wheelbase: 110.2

Curb Weight: 3396 (SL V6)

Cargo volume: 15.6

Front headroom: 40.8

Front Legroom: 43.9

Rear Headroom: 37.6

Rear Legroom: 36.4

Mazda 6

Length: 186.8

Width: 70.1

Height: 56.7

Wheelbase: 105.3

Curb Weight: 3091

Cargo volume: 15.2

Front headroom: 38.7

Front Legroom: 42.3

Rear Headroom: 37.1

Rear Legroom: 36.5

As for the curb weight specs, the difference between the lightest Altima and the lightest Accord was 127 lbs according to Consumer Guide. But when considering the heaviest, fully optioned V6 models, the SL and the EX V6 auto, the difference is less than 40 lbs, which indicates the Altima put weight on faster with trim level. The Accord and Altima weights came from their websites.

Also, the Accord scores significantly better in crash test results, which probably indicates the Accord has more structure, which would easily explain the weight difference, and should certainly be a consideration when buying a car.

Mazda didn't publish V6 S weights, but I believe it was about 3300-3350 lbs from what I have read in most mags.

The 2008 Accord should have a full 5 start safety rating, which will inevitably add more weight, but since the DOT is mandating safety rating on the window sticker by 2008, I am assuming that other manufacturer's will probably start to follow suit. That is good for the consumer, but bad for curb weights.

The Accord has grown 3 inches or more in pretty much every major dimension other than wheelbase, has far superior crash performance, more power, more features and still has managed to stay within 500lbs or so of a real world CB7. My 90 with a little bit of stereo equipment weighed, 2933 without me.

The trunk is dimensionally smaller by .4 cubic feet, but realistically, it is more usable because of the shape.

[owequitit]

yes, this is what i was getting at about the tsx coupe. on a side note, mercedes ended production on its c coupe because it wasn't a good selling car so no c coupes anymore

The CLK is still around as far as I can tell...

[gloryaccordy]

Arrrrrghhhh you're right owe, I "owe" it to myself to really see what the cars are about...on one hand I understand Honda is a business that has to cater to their markets and adhere to crash regulations but it still saddens me that their cars are not what they used to be. I mean the TSX would have made a great Accord for me, but the real Accord is way too big and the TSX is too expensive. It sucks! But I guess that's the way the cookie has crumbled.

Still...I haven't been wowed by a new Honda since the S2000...granted the CB is no race car , but I've driven CDs and CGs and they got progressively softer and less fun IMO. I'm sure the CF and CL would have been 100x more fun.

[owequitit]

Arrrrrghhhh you're right owe, I "owe" it to myself to really see what the cars are about...on one hand I understand Honda is a business that has to cater to their markets and adhere to crash regulations but it still saddens me that their cars are not what they used to be. I mean the TSX would have made a great Accord for me, but the real Accord is way too big and the TSX is too expensive. It sucks! But I guess that's the way the cookie has crumbled.

Still...I haven't been wowed by a new Honda since the S2000...granted the CB is no race car , but I've driven CDs and CGs and they got progressively softer and less fun IMO. I'm sure the CF and CL would have been 100x more fun.

That is why I said you are holding the CG against the CM. They are nothing alike. The CM IS a great Accord, and it really isn't that big.

I have driven multiple versions of every Honda you can think of (with the exception of the S2000), and the new Accord is VERY MUCH in character with what Hondas "used to be."

That is my whole point.

Nobody gives it a chance. Especially the 6 speed. I didn't drive the six speed and think AHHH HOW SAD....it was much more invigorating than I thought it would be. I expected slightly more than CG urgency. In the six speeds, you have to concentrate on NOT chirping the first 3 gears. Even when your not on it hard.

It was the first car in a long time that I would consider getting rid of my CB for. You have to know me and my relationship with my car to really fully grasp that statement...

Where the CG would kind of float along, the CM is taut but smooth. You can actually feel the road again, but it is never harsh. Where the CG would quietly wind up and accelerate, the CM would kick down 2 (sometimes 3)gears and scream to 7K, while burying the CG in its dust. The first auto 4 door CM we test drove was a 2004, and in the time the CG would have gone from 70-85 or 90, the CM was easily climbing to 110, and the CG isn't a slouch above 85.

Where you would enter a turn in the CG and start wafting to the outside while constantly sawing the wheel in response to mid corner suspension movements, the CM makes you think you should have entered 20MPH faster, and there is nary a twich in the wheel and the suspension just hunkers down and goes. Where you would hit a bump in the road in the CG and it would damp it slowly down and then back up, you get a very tight Germanesque KATHUMP. No harshnes, no float, no wander, no upset, but it IS firm. Just quickly and firmly down, and then back up. The ride is so composed that I have looked down several times to check my speed and found myself to be 20-30MPH in excess of the speed limit. You would occasionally find yourself 10MPH above what you expected in the CG, but you could usually tell you were fast. The CM feels like it is going the speed limit, when you are nowhere near it. Other than the glance down, there is no indication.

On hills where a kickdown in the CG would have resulted in adequate acceleration, the CM is passing 105-110 again when the CG would have been achieving 90.

Size wise, there is almost no adjustment going from CB to CM and back. The CM turning radius is actually a little bit better, and it isn't wider or longer enough to really worry about. Plus, sitting in the driver's seat, the proximity and the shape of the dash make the car seem the same size as the CB. The only real adjustment, was the fact that the sightlines are different, because the CM does have a comparatively large C pillar.

I guess I don't understand the size complaint, because you can't feel it, you can't tell it's there, unless you have passengers to appreciate it, it doesn't affect visibility or maneuverability, and it still gets better gas mileage.

People bag on the "lack of low end torque" because they assume that it is a 3 liter. It may lack some low end grunt compared to some others, but in typical Honda fashion, it makes up for it in the top end.

Realistically though, it had ZERO trouble overtaking normal Prescott traffic at 5,000 MSL, with 4 full size adults and thier shopping gear on a 90 degree day, when it was humid and raining. The CM wasn't trying, and I know because I was driving.

I very much appreciate the character of the old Hondas, because that is what originally made me a fan. We didn't own our first one long enough to get to test the reliability the day we bought it (obviously) so the original selling point was the way it drove.

I still haven't driven many cars that are as easy or intuitive to drive as most Hondas.

The first question I level when people bag on them is "have you driven one?" They always say no, because even the people that I have met that refuse to like them will normally admit that they were nice, but weren't big enough etc. I haven't really heard them just say "oh it was complete crap."

As for the TSX, it is about the same size as the CB in almost every dimension except curb weight. They are about $27,500 for a 6 speed non Navi model, or just about $1,000 more than an EX V6 Accord.

As far as the fact that they have been selling so well, it is because you can't realistically get a competitive car for the same price. Try optioning a 325i to the same point and see what you get. You can barely get a base 325i for that price, and that also means cloth seats etc.

You really need to go test drive some cars I think.

[HondaB18]

The CLK is still around as far as I can tell...

Yes, the CLK is still around but most people (Mercedes owners as well as most enthusiasts) do not consider them the C coupe because they do not share any similarities to the C Classes. A C Class (sedan) ranges from 29k-38k (excluding the C AMG), the CLK ranges from 47k-67k. The CL coupes (you can also consider that a C coupe if you want but I don't) ranges from 96k-130k. Then there is also the new CLS coupes which is about 97k. If Mercedes wanted to integrate them into their C class lineup they would make the prices more comparable to one another.

Mercedes CLK


Mercedes CL (Suppose to be an S class coupe)


Mercedes CLS (Still confused as to why Mercedes said it was a coupe when its a 4 door)


Mercedes C230K (Discontinued)


and a picture of a C class sedan from my personal pics

[deckeda]

Wow this thread has become in-depth! A couple of thoughts I had while reading the last day or so:

On Honda diversity:
The split in the Accord line we see today is largely a marketing one. The TSX is of course Honda's "traditional, smaller" Accord still sold elsewhere. I still say it's the "H22 Accord we never had." Get one while you can. The U.S. Accord is however representative of what U.S. buyers have demanded, i.e. something bigger. We in this group may not appreciate the bigger car, but America largely does.

C/D has been talking about the trend for bigger cars lately. A recent column noted that average MPG has been stagnant for years despite advances in engine technology. People like horsepower and torque, and there's far more of available today, all across the board, than at any time in history. Manufacturers could keep the same cars but put smaller or weaker engines in them, but that isn't what buyers want. Although that might change with higher gas prices. Cars are ever-heavier today because people demand stiffer structures too.

On the Altima:
I just read it's actually going to be a little smaller next year. 0.9-inch wheelbase reduction and 2.5 inches shorter overall. It's been a curious car. The original had a market unto itself: bigger than Civics and Corollas, smaller than Accords and Camrys. People bought them. And then Nissan wanted Accord/Camry sales and it got huge. New problem: it looked the same size as a Maxima. Now, they may have it right.

On the V6 6-speed Accords:
I've not had the pleasure of driving one, but I've read of them being described in terms similar to sports sedans, true sleepers --- and bargains compared to the TSX. And as much as C/D has always loved the Accord, they've never once "confused it" with a 3-series in those terms up until now. Then again, it's all perception; they've also harped on the TSX because it doesn't offer a lot of power for the money.

[AccordWarrior]

Wow this thread has become in-depth! A couple of thoughts I had while reading the last day or so:

On Honda diversity:
The split in the Accord line we see today is largely a marketing one. The TSX is of course Honda's "traditional, smaller" Accord still sold elsewhere. I still say it's the "H22 Accord we never had." Get one while you can. The U.S. Accord is however representative of what U.S. buyers have demanded, i.e. something bigger. We in this group may not appreciate the bigger car, but America largely does.

C/D has been talking about the trend for bigger cars lately. A recent column noted that average MPG has been stagnant for years despite advances in engine technology. People like horsepower and torque, and there's far more of available today, all across the board, than at any time in history. Manufacturers could keep the same cars but put smaller or weaker engines in them, but that isn't what buyers want. Although that might change with higher gas prices. Cars are ever-heavier today because people demand stiffer structures too.

On the Altima:
I just read it's actually going to be a little smaller next year. 0.9-inch wheelbase reduction and 2.5 inches shorter overall. It's been a curious car. The original had a market unto itself: bigger than Civics and Corollas, smaller than Accords and Camrys. People bought them. And then Nissan wanted Accord/Camry sales and it got huge. New problem: it looked the same size as a Maxima. Now, they may have it right.

On the V6 6-speed Accords:
I've not had the pleasure of driving one, but I've read of them being described in terms similar to sports sedans, true sleepers --- and bargains compared to the TSX. And as much as C/D has always loved the Accord, they've never once "confused it" with a 3-series in those terms up until now. Then again, it's all perception; they've also harped on the TSX because it doesn't offer a lot of power for the money.

I've always found Car and Driver VERY biased towards BMW products. In comparison tests, I've seen stripper base models beat the top models of every car. The E36 M3 never lost a comparo test until its last year when they put it against the then new S4 bi-turbo. Even the writing made it seem like they didn't want it to lose.

[owequitit]

Just a couple of thoughts.

Yes the CLK is CONSIDERED a different car, but considering that its architecture shares a lot in common with the C class I believe, so I personally consider it a 2 door C class.

Sort of like the Prelude. It was essentially a 2 door Accord, even though Honda wanted to pretend it wasn't.

As far as the TSX, it really isn't that fast. It is fairly high strung, weighs pretty close the EX V6, and VTEC only engages for 900 RPM. They are good for high 15 second 1/4s usually.

However, most people will tell you that the balance and handling are superb for any car, let alone a FF one. Plus, the price discount over its competitors, is a huge plus, and they look damn good too.

I personally would rather have an EX V6. It doesn't have the "status" of a name plate, but it is one helluva car. And the six is very much along the lines of Maxima's, TL's, and maybe even some base model non-sport package 3 series etc.

As far as C/D being biased, I think there are a couple cars that just suit their collective tastes. The 3 series being one of them and the Accord another one. They get flack for being biased towards these all the time, but the fact is they are great to drive, and they just do so many things so well.

I have seen the 3 series more or less clean up most of the comparison tests it has been in regardless of who's name was on the masthead.