Acura TSX Details Surface
Ahead of New York debut
Add a Comment
Login
Comments (7)
Doesn't look that different from the outgoing model.
I wish we would get the good looking European "Accord" wagon to the US.
February 14, 2008 12:33 pm
I was expecting a bigger engine out of this. What happened to those rumors about it having a turbo charged engine? Also dissapointed about it not having a 6 speed automatic. What is Honda doing??
February 14, 2008 12:46 pm
I Have no idea what honda engineers are smoking! .. but i guess the 2.4 L TSX is the fuel efficient version but i will admit the 170hp torque is a pleasant upgrade from previous generation.
But dont lose hope yet guys, i believe a type-S version will come out and lets all hope they dump the rdx engine with the SH AWD into the TSX :) ... we can hope right?
February 14, 2008 6:46 pm
i am guessing the turbo model might be coming as the tsx-s (type s) following it's big brother the TL.
February 14, 2008 9:30 pm
Honda Corp. must be making money on the TSX to stubbornly continue to make the same 2.4l inline 4 in a such a competitive segment. Or they are doing so poorly and so hopeless with the vehicle it doesn't justify any serious redevelopment of the product for the US market. My guess is success of the European Accord more than makes up for the poor sales of the TSX.
February 16, 2008 7:39 pm
Acura does not need to develop a new V6 for the TSX though, they can just drop down the TL's 3.2l. MB and Lexus do that all the time, it works. Acura just put the 3.7l MDX motor into the 2009 RL...COOL! But where's the V8? They also dropped the RL's 3.5l into the TL Type-S (slightly detuned though).. they seem to be headed in the right direction, generally. It's really the higher end stuff that's lacking from Acura, they need to realize fuel economy and luxury are mutually exclusive, especially in the US mkt. Acura has to decide, sooner rather than later, if they want to be a maker of economic cars (we already have Hondas ), or a bonafide LUXURY brand b4 they are relegated to irrelevancy. Can't have it both ways.
February 16, 2008 8:03 pm









