Vehicle Tested:
2009 Acura TSX 4dr Sedan w/Technology Package (2.4L 4cyl 6M)
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $32,775 Price It!!

What Works:
Superb front seats; integration of in-car technology into a simple interface.

What Needs Work:
Un-Honda feel to the electric steering; poor braking performance; unimpressive driving dynamics; not much engine torque.

Bottom Line:
A more relaxed and sophisticated commuter device than the original TSX, but it no longer makes the cut as a driver's car.



http://www.edmunds.com/insidel...26300

So basically I got it right on the money again. I think I am going to start my own magazine called "SICKTruth and Driver".

On the flipside, I do want to buy the same alcohol and drugs Acura/Honda uses and have it for my next party here in Atlanta....must be some POWERFUL stuff...


I found this interesting


The 2009 Acura TSX is also an easy mark for almost any family sedan with a V6, especially when equipped with the five-speed automatic. Wetested a TSX with the five-speed and its 0-to-60-mph time fell to 8.6 seconds (8.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). That's slower than all four of the family sedans in our last comparison test which included the Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima and Toyota Camry.

The 240-hp turbocharged 2.3-liter inline-4 in the Acura RDX seems like the obvious solution here. Even the 4,000-pound RDX beats the TSX through the quarter-mile (15.2 seconds at 90.4 seconds), so you can imagine the results if the engine had 600 fewer pounds of car to motivate. But the turbocharged engine's intercooler would have to go up front and that would lengthen the front overhang, and Acura's designers aren't up for a car with a big nose.


So no, no turbo I-4 is coming either, you Honda guys can give it a rest now. I have heard a V-6 will be dropped though. It has TONS of room inside the engine bay for a bigger engine.

My wish did not come true... Turbo engine from the RDX and the SH-AWD from the RL... very sad indeed..

Saw one on the road today in front of me - it looked better than the pics I'd seen.

And that pic above actually looks better to me than previous pics I saw.

I test drove one yesterday.

Acceleration is on par with the IS250, handling is not as good, ride quality is better, noise is about on par, interior looks is on par, interior materials quality is not but isn't too far behind in most areas, features and technology for the money is significantly better.

All in all I'd still consider one if I was in the market for a practical entry level luxury daily driver and wasn't looking for anything too awfully sporty. I agree it's definitely not a driver's car anymore, but I don't see anything necessarily wrong with that either... it's more comfortable and practical because of it. It definitely has its own solid niche in the market.

In fact if the diesel version comes out at or near 50mpg highway for not too much more $$ then there's a good chance I'll get one.

Not much I can add here. Your collective views are all pretty much the same as mine when I reviewed the car myself....and compared it to the IS250. Nose overhang or not, I thought one of the strangest things on the new TSX was the lack of the RDX's turbo-4 as an opton.

The Edmunds article, though, did not stress the big drop in interior quality between the 2008 and 2009......that was a major oversight.

The drop in material quality was noticeable but not what I'd describe as major compared to the last TSX (which of itself didn't have the most amazing materials for its class, either). Assembly seemed very good though - so maybe in their mind that made up for it.

I mean it still seemed way nicer inside than my BMW, but that's not hard to accomplish... and my friend who came with me said he liked the interior better than his 05 TL.

I have to partially diagree. I thought the last TSX had a superb interior, especially the beige one with the chrome, brushed metal, and wood. That was sorely missing from the new one, which is mostly silver and gray plastic.

As far as acceleration goes, I've learned to take what Edmunds publishes with a grain of salt. But I can imagine this thing isn't terribly fast or even quick.

How is the new TSX's manual gearbox? Is it typical honda-smooth?

I acutally like the 1st generation TSX better...That front grill on the new gen is pretty fugly...

Am I the only one who thinks that Acura could have done a way better job designing the front and rear end? And that front grill is absolutely terrible.

Wow! $30k for a TSX! No thanks! First gen looked much better.

30k for a civic lookalike?

no thanks.

audi competitor? i don't like audi, but i'd take one over the tsx

This car officially sucks for me. No I4 Turbo (I was hoping it would come out later), and god awful slow acceleration. 7.5 0-60 is the magic nominal number for me. I consider 7.5 -60 spring adequate. Below that the car is pretty fast. Slower than that the car is pretty slow. Looks wise I'm okay with it since the only thing I really don't like is the front grill and that is easy to change. Over all Honda/Acura is making the exact same mistake they made in 1996 when they came out with an RL that had 20 HP less than the outgoing Legend, was larger but blander, and what seems like at best a parallel step if not an out right downgrade from the outgoing version. Freakin idiots.

The problem, though, CK, is that no matter how much power you put into a car, for some people, it is never enough. They always want more. It becomes an obsession.

Having said that, I agree, however, that the lack of the RSX's turbo-4 is indeed strange.