Not a big fan either....would like to see it in person though!

 

adequate for what? a midsize family sedan? a small sport compact? too bad the new tsx is not ANY of those, especially since it weighs almost 300lbs more than its previous version, which had more hp but slightly less torque. i think they tuned the engine to put out 170lbt-ft just to deal with the extra weight and keep acceleration times similar to the previous model.

look at what kind of power the competition offers! and i'm glad you posted the edmunds article, because even they adressed this: all the other competitors have either significantly more hp, torque, or both and get very similar gas mileage. the k series, especially the versions that require premium fuel, are simply NOT that fuel efficient. (the k20 from the base rsx/02-05 si is rated at 22/29, barely better than my old vw rabbit which had 40lbft of torque more, and only 5hp less, with an extra cylinder and 200lbs of weight!)


i'm really dissapointed until the type s comes. but even then, it will cost a pretty penny, and the engine, while great, is what should have come standard.

 

By "adequate horsepower" I mean 200hp is more than enough for the type of driving a TSX will deal with. Meaning regular traffic, highway, and occasionally a twisty road. It doesn't need more power for any of those applications, regardless of what the competition has. All these FWD family sedans with 270+hp is just plain stupid and wasteful.

Edmunds says the new TSX weighs 140lbs more than its predecessor. Where did you get 300lbs from? Also, Edmunds makes the dumb assed claim that the Corvette has "comparable" mileage with the TSX at 15/24. 7 and 5 mpg respective differences are huge, probably around 75-100 miles more per tank. Not to mention they are completely different cars.

And where are you getting those RSX FE numbers? EPA says the base RSX 5MT will do 24/31, and the 5AT is 22/31. Those are after the 2008 revision.

Also, it seems that generally 4 cylinder engines can exceed their EPA estimates FAR more. Just look at how many people are getting well above EPA ratings in their Fits here without trying. TrueDelta's TSX records show that most drivers are getting 25-30mpg in mixed driving.

 

i got the numbers per edmunds as well. as far as the mpg go the 22/29 is for the si hatch, and even then 22/31 for a 2.0 litre motor isn't all that great, considering the lighter weight, one cyl less and .05 litres of displacement less. even the best 5at on the rsx only yields a measely 1-2 mpg increase over engines that are much bigger.

I agree, the corvette comparo was kinda silly...but then look at how much more performance you get. but they also mentioned the 135i, which has a MONSTER TURBOCHARGED 3.0 V6....and the numbers were not that far off at ALL.


as far as adequate power goes...yeah its adequate, but barely. for a car that is being marketed as an entry level SPORT sedan, it leaves a bit to be desired on the powetrain front. the handling, i'm sure, will be sublime....but it def could do with some more grunt. even if the weight gain is only 144lbs or whatever, the lack of torque and loss of hp won't help it.

 

Wow since when did Chrysler start making TSX's? =D

 

well...mirrors onward towards the back = A-OK.
Everything in front of the mirrors....really? What the hell is that? It looks so cheap and Un-Acura. I hope they fix that.

 

The older TSX looks way better. At first glance, it does look like a Saturn.