Dainty rear disk brakes

[O. W. Kone]

What's with this non-ventilated thin rear disks on the TSX?

The car deserves beefier brakes both front and back - at least 1 inch more in diameter disk ventilated all around. Honda cheaped out on this important part.

[larchmont]

Welcome, OWK -- and I don't know from ventilated or non-ventilated, thin or thick.
But I've wished the brakes were better.

BTW how long have you had your TSX and how many miles do you have?
I've posted that the braking on my car seemed better after a while than at first. It made me wonder if brakes get "broken in" over time. I still don't know the answer to that, but I'd be curious if your car is just starting out. And if so, if you'll be finding the braking to be better after some more mileage.

[hip]

What's with this non-ventilated thin rear disks on the TSX?

The car deserves beefier brakes both front and back - at least 1 inch more in diameter disk ventilated all around. Honda cheaped out on this important part.


Welcome to the site, as Larch said give the brakes a little break-in time. But you are right that they are not the best that can be had. I read a review somewhere that after 4 hard panic stops they turned to mush.

Keep in mind on FWD, braking is always biased toward the front and typically you will go through about 3-4 front pads for every rear set. That is why Honda can get away with smaller, non-ventilated rotors.

If I remember correctly, the proportioning valve is set for about an 80-20 split on brake pressure? Bottom line, the fronts are doing most of the work with the rears along for the ride.

I'm sure the aftermarket has numerous upgrades by now?

[larchmont]

....you are right that they are not the best that can be had. I read a review somewhere that after 4 hard panic stops they turned to mush.
Ouch! I hope not.

Larchmont, who tries not to panic. :D


....Keep in mind on FWD, braking is always biased toward the front.....
As I understand it, BTW, that's why the TL 6MT has Brembos only on the front.


Useless trivia factoid: This was the first time the word "dainty" has ever been used on this site. And it's never been used on "the other" site.
(Yes, I checked.) :D

[kiteboy]

Keep in mind on FWD, braking is always biased toward the front and typically you will go through about 3-4 front pads for every rear set.

All wheeled vehicles (cars, motorcycles, bikes) are front-biased during braking because of weight transfer. Of course, FWD cars more so because they tend to have more static weight at the front anyways.

[Dan Martin]

Stoptech has a kit now for the TSX but they don't touch the rears because even those small disks and calipers are more than enough to lock up the rear.

[hip]

Useless trivia factoid: This was the first time the word "dainty" has ever been used on this site. And it's never been used on "the other" site.
(Yes, I checked.) :D

Larch,
I'm really worried about you... :jeffy:

[larchmont]

Larch,
I'm really worried about you... :jeffy:
NOT the first time THIS has been said on the site. :D

[bob shiftright]

I'm sure the aftermarket has numerous upgrades by now?

It has for years ... they're called "BMWs". :)

More seriously, my Volvo has solid rear rotors and the car will stop. But the Volvo OEM pads (I run the OEM pads on Brembo rotors) are just messy and make the wheels look filthy. The tradeoff is that you can use cleaner pads but they won't last as long and the car won't stop as well. In Hondas for 98% of drivers it won't make any difference 98% of the time. In BMWs or Porsches (which have used ventilated rear brakes as long as I can remember) it probably doesn't make any difference, either, because most are brought to "Track Day" about as often as most SUVs go off-road. It's essentially a maketing decision and not necessarily a bad one. It's also one of many reasons that a TSX is so much cheaper than a 325i. There are a lot of other places that Honda "cheaps out" in their designs. Usually it doesn't matter.

As for "dainty", I'm becoming convinced that Acura sells the ultimate in "Chick Cars"......

[O. W. Kone]

Welcome, OWK -- and I don't know from ventilated or non-ventilated, thin or thick.
But I've wished the brakes were better.

BTW how long have you had your TSX and how many miles do you have?
I've posted that the braking on my car seemed better after a while than at first. It made me wonder if brakes get "broken in" over time. I still don't know the answer to that, but I'd be curious if your car is just starting out. And if so, if you'll be finding the braking to be better after some more mileage.

Thanks for the Welcome.

220 miles this morning a mix of city and burb driving. I am sure the brakes are breaking-in. The observation was just an physical observation not a comment on the braking ability.

I think my Integra had ventilated disks from the factory both front and back.

Hip, Comptech has drilled rotors front and back for TSX. But that's beside the point - Honda should have put in beefier brakes. They simply cheaded out there.

Also, Honda cheaped out on the high beams - they should have put in the super-whites (sylvania sliver star) for a better match with the HID headlights. The halogen highs look more distinctly yellow against the HIDs. IMO awkward to say it politely :( .

[larchmont]

Thanks for the Welcome.

220 miles this morning a mix of city and burb driving. I am sure the brakes are breaking-in. The observation was just an physical observation not a comment on the braking ability.
Yes indeed, that's what I thought -- the low mileage, as well as that you were making MOSTLY a physical observation. But I was also assuming that you wouldn't have been moved to say it unless you were also disappointed in the braking performance -- which (consensus seems to be) will get better as you go along.

BTW, I'm wondering.... how much in general can you really tell about the braking just from those physical characteristics? Not that I know about these details, but I would have thought it depends also on "quality," plus other aspects of the car besides the brakes. And I imagine it must, at least to some extent, but maybe those things are either pretty standard or sort of negligible....

....Also, Honda cheaped out on the high beams - they should have put in the super-whites (sylvania sliver star) for a better match with the HID headlights. The halogen highs look more distinctly yellow against the HIDs. IMO awkward to say it politely :( .
Well, IMO you're pretty polite even when you're being impolite. :D

I never thought of that, didn't even realize about it. Don't know if it's ever been pointed out on these sites -- anybody else recall?

In terms of "performance," though, the high beams are pretty great, aren't they? The low beam OTOH doesn't make everybody happy. To me, it's one of the disappointments about the car. I was coming from a TL-S, whose low beams IMO were much better, in fact the best of any car I ever had.

[O. W. Kone]

Thin disk will wear out faster. Larger disk and pads improves braking because there is more surface area for the braking action. Ventilated disks like the ones in the front allow for better cooling of the disks thus reduced chance of disk warp in the long run. Less heat means less gas generated from the heating of the brake pads - the gas forms a very thin layer on the disk surface that prevents better contact of the pads with the disks during hard braking. Less heat may also extend brake pad life. Cross drilled and ventilated disks are used for improved braking for these reasons.

I am coming from a 95 Integra so the HIDs are an improvement for me.

I could also use a little less of front end push. Perhaps a heavier rear anti-sway bar from Comptech will solve that problem.

[hip]

Thanks for the Welcome.
I think my Integra had ventilated disks from the factory both front and back.

Hip, Comptech has drilled rotors front and back for TSX. But that's beside the point - Honda should have put in beefier brakes. They simply cheaded out there.

Also, Honda cheaped out on the high beams - they should have put in the super-whites (sylvania sliver star) for a better match with the HID headlights. The halogen highs look more distinctly yellow against the HIDs. IMO awkward to say it politely :( .

Well, there are many sides to every story and as we all know, car manufacturers will do whatever it takes to sell a car... so long as they can make a profit.

As it has already been said, for the way most Honda/Acura drivers drive, the current setup is probably sufficient. I suppose it’s all relevant and what you compare it against. Keep in mind that despite the fact that Honda sells this vehicle as an Acura or premium model, we all realize it is based on an Accord platform, a much improved and great platform, but still an Accord. Honestly, whenever anyone asks me what kind of car it is, I tell them it's a European model Accord. I find it more honest and less pretentious to downplay the Acura part.

I know many here will take exception with that statement, but it is grounded in fact. For as good as the TSX is, it is essentially an Accord. Yes, Honda made some real improvements on the TSX over the Euro Accord, but most was cosmetic. On the plus side, they did an excellent job, otherwise none of us would have bought one.

Obviously, against a Porsche, BMW, etc. the Acura may not stack up as well in every area. But just like some Porsche or BMW owners may feel their cars are lacking, so they modify and enhance theirs with performance parts. It all comes back to what you are looking for and how much do you want to pay?

Most here feel Honda has done well and leave it at that. Some may decide to make subtle improvements or mods and others may turn their TSXs into racers. I suppose that is the beauty of the car, it can be whatever you want it to be?

As for the headlights, I agree from an aesthetic point of view it may not "look" great having different lighting in the high beams. Somehow, I don't think that was Honda's priority when they developed it?

Look at it this way, Honda could add rear vented brakes, super-white high beams and much more, but would you have purchased the TSX if they charged another $3K? Maybe yes, maybe not, just like everything in life, it’s a compromise.

I know when I was shopping, my closest 2nd choice car was the G35. it had the higher output V6, RWD, LED tail lamps, rear reclining seats and better performance. But, it also had what I felt was a cheaper looking interior, and was priced higher by about $3K-$5K depending on model and accessories.

Being biased toward Honda and comparing the two, I couldn't justify the extra dollars, but some people do and are happy. Some do and are unhappy too just as you or I might be over small things we think they "cheaped out" on. The point is, there isn't a car out there that any of us believe is perfect, because... it doesn't exist.

You make your choice and drive your decision, unless you are so unhappy that you decide to sell and move on?

[larchmont]

Thin disk will wear out faster. Larger disk and pads improves braking because there is more surface area for the braking action. Ventilated disks like the ones in the front allow for better cooling of the disks thus reduced chance of disk warp in the long run. Less heat means less gas generated from the heating of the brake pads - the gas forms a very thin layer on the disk surface that prevents better contact of the pads with the disks during hard braking. Less heat may also extend brake pad life. Cross drilled and ventilated disks are used for improved braking for these reasons.....
Great reply -- thanks, OWK! Even I can understand that. :D


.....As it has already been said, for the way most Honda/Acura drivers drive, the current setup is probably sufficient. I suppose it’s all relevant and what you compare it against. Keep in mind that despite the fact that Honda sells this vehicle as an Acura or premium model, we all realize it is based on an Accord platform, a much improved and great platform, but still an Accord.....
Yes, Honda made some real improvements on the TSX over the Euro Accord, but most was cosmetic. On the plus side, they did an excellent job, otherwise none of us would have bought one.
.....Honda could add rear vented brakes, super-white high beams and much more, but would you have purchased the TSX if they charged another $3K? Maybe yes, maybe not, just like everything in life, it’s a compromise.

I know when I was shopping, my closest 2nd choice car was the G35. it had the higher output V6, RWD, LED tail lamps, rear reclining seats and better performance. But, it also had what I felt was a cheaper looking interior, and was priced higher by about $3K-$5K depending on model and accessories.

Being biased toward Honda and comparing the two, I couldn't justify the extra dollars, but some people do and are happy.....
Great post by Hip too. Actually a lot of people would have bought the Acura even if they didn't do a great job. I even might have. :tardsmash

I think you might be minimizing the differences between the TSX and the Euro Accord. As you say, most of the differences are cosmetic, but.....and pardon me for putting it a little academically, but IMO that's not the question. It's not whether "most" of the changes are substantive or not, it's WHAT the substantive changes are and how significant they are. It seems that very, very few people know exactly what those are. I think there are basically two types of people on this. There are those who just "assume" that the changes are great, because it's "an Acura." Then there are the more knowledgeable people, who tend to say "it's basically an Accord" and wave off the whole thing without really inquiring further. My understanding is that there are only a couple of major differences, but that they are indeed major: the power, and the suspension. I would love to try a Euro Accord to see the difference. I bet I'd love that too, but that the differences from the TSX -- especially the suspension -- would feel very significant to me.

About paying an extra $3K for those things, yes, it would vary a lot. I'd be happy to pay extra for the better brakes and for some other things, but I could care less about the high beams. I'd gladly pay a lot extra, though, for LOW beams that were more to my liking. Which is right in line with your point: Honda/Acura seems to have done a good job catering to the bulk of their market. They seem to have put in enough of everything to make us basically happy.

About the G35: I recently rented one for a few days. I wouldn't have taken it over the TSX even if it cost $3-5K less than the TSX.

[johnej]

Y'all have said it so eloquently. I agree.....

[O. W. Kone]

Most here feel Honda has done well and leave it at that. Some may decide to make subtle improvements or mods and others may turn their TSXs into racers. I suppose that is the beauty of the car, it can be whatever you want it to be?

As for the headlights, I agree from an aesthetic point of view it may not "look" great having different lighting in the high beams. Somehow, I don't think that was Honda's priority when they developed it?

Look at it this way, Honda could add rear vented brakes, super-white high beams and much more, but would you have purchased the TSX if they charged another $3K? Maybe yes, maybe not, just like everything in life, it’s a compromise.

You make your choice and drive your decision, unless you are so unhappy that you decide to sell and move on?

Hip, I work for a Japanese company I have learnt how fastidious they can be about the subtlties. A large American company IS contract manufacturing a product for us - what they feel is good quality is unacceptable by my Japanese counterparts just because of minor appearnace flaws that has no bearing at all on product performance or quality. Even I would consider that product to be perfectly good for the US and European markets. That is exactly why the TSX is so well made Honda thought about the minor details. I detailed the inside of the car with leather treatment the week I got it - the only fault I detected was a half inch piece of thead caught in the seams of the rear middle handrest. That is why I find is so out of character for Honda not to use a superwhite high beams.

As for the brakes if Honda could put in ventilated disks disks all around in their Integra LS with only 140HP in 1995 - it is not unreasonable to expect higher grade brakes in their new car.

Neither changes would have cost Honda $3K.

As for your last comment about choice - all I can say Honda and other makers do listen to the customers if we comment on the perceived shortcomings they will respond in their future years or models. If they hear no complaints they have no way of knowing what the customers would want. I have already pointed out these shortcomings to Honda.

[larchmont]

.....As for the brakes if Honda could put in ventilated disks disks all around in their Integra LS with only 140HP in 1995 - it is not unreasonable to expect higher grade brakes in their new car.

Neither changes would have cost Honda $3K....
Yes -- I wondered exactly that about the Integra thing.

And I wonder how much it would have cost for them to have higher-grade brakes.


An afterthought about this: I imagine that the higher-grade brakes would add weight in the wheel areas. (Right?) Wouldn't that affect power and handling? People often forget to consider the possible effects on performance when they start mentioning extra things they'd like to have on the car.

And if the answer to this is yes, I wonder if maybe THAT'S why Honda used what they did, not to save a few bucks. I don't know if this would be a plausible explanation, but it's certainly more palatable.


P.S. Things I would have been happy to pay extra for, as long as they didn't cause any compromises in performance, ride, or comfort:

-- better brakes
-- better tires
-- broader illumination on low beam, no sharp "cut-off"
-- power passenger seat
-- memory driver seat

And, as a lower priority than any of those (I know I'm in the minority):

-- an extra 10-15% power/torque.

[hip]

I detailed the inside of the car with leather treatment the week I got it - the only fault I detected was a half inch piece of thead caught in the seams of the rear middle handrest. That is why I find is so out of character for Honda not to use a superwhite high beams.

As for the brakes if Honda could put in ventilated disks disks all around in their Integra LS with only 140HP in 1995 - it is not unreasonable to expect higher grade brakes in their new car.

Neither changes would have cost Honda $3K.

As for your last comment about choice - all I can say Honda and other makers do listen to the customers if we comment on the perceived shortcomings they will respond in their future years or models. If they hear no complaints they have no way of knowing what the customers would want. I have already pointed out these shortcomings to Honda.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of what you said, but I do disagree with your superwhite high beam example. Here's why, I'm usually one of the first to "comment" on the differences between the newer Hondas and previous generations. I am constantly comparing my wife's '93 Accord with the TSX and can clearly see many areas of cost cutting. Compared to older Hondas, it's very obvious where they saved dollars.

But you need to keep in mind how the playing field has changed since 1993. Honda is no longer struggling for market share in the US, they have become a "leader." As a leader, they aren't focusing on just retaining customers but capturing new ones. If they loose a few along the way through attrition, oh well, that's business.

So instead of worrying about deleting items they once used in previous models like the rear vented rotors of your Integra or the little covers used to hide the seat bracket mounting bolts in our '93 Accord, they look at the competition instead. What are they offering or leaving out? Then they determine which features will bring the biggest bang for their yen. The quality remains high, but they eliminate things in a way to make it more cost effective for themselves.

A perfect example, the speakers covers in the doors used to be seperate. Now they are integrated and part of the entire door panel. The levers down next to seat used to contain 2 seperate levers, one for gas, one for the trunk opener, now one lever does both. Is this being cheaper, no its just more cost effective engineering and manufacturing. As a customer or end user, you are satisfied because the quality and reliability are still high, but their cost to manufacture is lower, thereby increasing their profits.

If you or I or even Larch owned Honda, we'd do the same thing. It's economics and a business. Why haven't you complained about the deletion of the amber rear turn lenses in the tail lamps, or the lack of body side moldings or making mud flaps standard. These used to be included in previous generations?

My guess is that the car is so inheritantly "good" you and I and everyone are willing to overlook these items and live without them or choose to add them later if possible (superbrights). But also, more importantly, the competition doesn't offer them either (mostly). The stuff Honda does include is generally better than everyone else's but is still less than what they once offered. It's not necessariy wrong, it's just business and we all decide to accept it or not?

Also, something else to keep in mind, let's say Honda gave you everything you asked for. Now the price bumps up by about $1500-$2000, would you pay? Maybe, but this would also shrink the gap between its own models. Either the TL raises its price to maintain the price gap or Acura loses sales of that model because their TSX entry level model is almost as well equipped as the TL. Now all their models become more expensive and eveyone complains how overpriced Acuras have become (if they aren't already)?

There are so many aspects to this business, it's like hitting a moving target. I believe you when you say how the Japanese quality levels are way superior to the domestics. That is why we all love our Hondas and Acuras and aren't driving equivilant Chryslers and Fords models (if there are any). But it also comes back to economics and being competitive.

Perhaps we may get rear vented rotors by way of the new A-Spec, maybe that's how they plan to offer them, as part of a high performance package? Or maybe not?

[larchmont]

.....The levers down next to seat used to contain 2 seperate levers, one for gas, one for the trunk opener, now one lever does both. Is this being cheaper, no its just more cost effective engineering and manufacturing.....
Great analysis in that post up there, Hip.

I'm picking out this little point not because it's one of the more important things (it's not), but because I don't recall that anybody has ever mentioned this either on any TSX site (although OCICBW), and I never much thought about it either.

But now that I do.....I would never think it was "cheap," it wouldn't even occur to me that it cost less to make it this way.

In fact, I would have thought it cost more, because it is (or at least seems) more sophisticated. And it's more elegant, it's more compact, and it takes up less space (unlike this sentence :D ). If it were an option that cost an extra 50 bucks, I'd pay it.

I thought that these days, in general, when you can make something more compact or less compact, or when you can make two different things integrated or you can make them separate, I thought that smaller tends to be more expensive than bigger (think watches and clocks, or compact camcorders and humongous ones), and integrated tends to be more expensive than separate.

Without much thinking about it, I always regarded this combination gasoline cover opener/trunk opener as an advance, not an economy.

[hip]

Great analysis in that post up there, Hip.

I thought that these days, in general, when you can make something more compact or less compact, or when you can make two different things integrated or you can make them separate, I thought that smaller tends to be more expensive than bigger (think watches and clocks, or compact camcorders and humongous ones), and integrated tends to be more expensive than separate.

Without much thinking about it, I always regarded this combination gasoline cover opener/trunk opener as an advance, not an economy.

That's exactly correct Larch, when I or anyone design a product there are always goals to achieve. In the case of cars or Hondas, they have many specific requirements. Generally they are broken down into two areas; refinement and innovation.

In the case of refinement, they look at the features currently offered and determine how to improve them while simultaneously making them more cost effective to manufacture. To some extent refining can be easier than innovating. The reason is technology, advances in technology provide cost effective solutions that drive prices down.

Here's a great example, do you recall on your old Acura the climate control buttons used for recirculation? One button would allow outside air in and the other would recirculate the air. Well, why not combine those into one button? You reduce cost, dashboard real estate and improve reliability if only by eliminating an extra switch that could potentially malfunction. That's what Honda and almost everyone else did. Did it cheapen the car or make it less expensive to buy? No, they maintained the use of high quality switches, eliminated one and as far as the customer is concerned, you or I could care less if we push two seperate switches or one switch twice?

What about hood mounted windhshield washer jets, is anyone crying over the lack of these? Probably not unless you felt the need to change them out with illuminated versions. If you did, most likely you didn't care for them in the first place. Instead, Honda has installed them under the edge of the hood where they are hidden, all be the same color and make the car look "cleaner." Most importantly, Honda saves some yen.

Some countries require certain features or are culturally expected in certain parts of the world. Headlight washers make sense everywhere and many premium car makers include them in the U.S. domestic market. Again, Honda choose not to, why... to save money. Sure, we'd all like them, but not many will complain because Honda didn't offer them before, so most don't feel "cheated." Yet in Europe they are either required or expected. What about the center rear headrest on the Euro Accord, a must have safety feature that Honda includes in most of their family vehicles. Any complaints, I'm not hearing any? Again, Europe and other countries may require them so they're in there.

However, on the flip side they do make mistakes and remove or change items that irriatate some customers. The rear brake rotors might impact some people, but not enough for Honda to worry about because braking performance is deemed adequate.

But what about antennas? Some people hate electric and mast antennas because of the way the car looks and because electrics were always failing. Car makers loathed them because of warranty costs. In fact, that was the real reason electric antennas were eliminated, cost of repair. Well, now we have integrated window antennas that IMO do not function nearly as well as I am constantly reminded whenever I drive my wife's Accord and listen to a superior reception in her car compared to my TSX.

A better compromise would have been to install a fixed mast antenna on the rear roof. Again, a gamble by Honda that integrated window antennas would not create enough negative resistance to keep people from buying. I do agree with O. W. Kone, if enough people are unhappy with their receptions or lack of rear vented rotors, they should write Honda and tell them. But, it would take a lot for them to justify a change and that might possibly occur in a later model year.

When you are innovating, this becomes more difficult. You work with the technology that is currently available, but when innovating there is usually no benchmark in terms of cost, reliability, acceptance by the customer, etc. The Navi is perfect example, a lot of people like it especially with the Voice Recognition. But how many are willing to step up to the plate and pay an extra $2K for it? This technology is still evolving and over time it's cost will continue to drop as well. As more people have it, more will expect it. But if Honda deletes features that customers feel important... guess what? People will complain.

Interior space is a precious commoditiy for auto makers, they will do almost anything to gain and preserve it in order to make their interiors larger without making their cars bigger. So if Honda, Toyota or any car makers can find a way to eliminate hardware, you bet they will, it saves money and that's what this is all about... saving and making money. :soapbox:

[larchmont]

That's exactly correct.....
Here's a great example, do you recall on your old Acura the climate control buttons used for recirculation? One button would allow outside air in and the other would recirculate the air. Well, why not combine those into one button? You reduce cost, dashboard real estate and improve reliability.....

What about hood mounted windhshield washer jets, is anyone crying over the lack of these?.....Honda has installed them under the edge of the hood where they are hidden, all be the same color and make the car look "cleaner." Most importantly, Honda saves some yen.

However, on the flip side they do make mistakes and remove or change items that irriatate some customers. The rear brake rotors might impact some people, but not enough for Honda to worry about because braking performance is deemed adequate.

But what about antennas? Some people hate electric and mast antennas because of the way the car looks and because electrics were always failing. Car makers loathed them because of warranty costs. In fact, that was the real reason electric antennas were eliminated, cost of repair. Well, now we have integrated window antennas that IMO do not function nearly as well.....
A better compromise would have been to install a fixed mast antenna on the rear roof....

Interior space is a precious commoditiy for auto makers, they will do almost anything to gain and preserve it in order to make their interiors larger without making their cars bigger. So if Honda, Toyota or any car makers can find a way to eliminate hardware, you bet they will, it saves money and that's what this is all about... saving and making money.
IMO this is one of the best, most interesting and creative threads there has ever been on any TSX site, thanks to OWK and Hip.
Another great, great post from Hip.

I have a slightly different slant on some of it. To me, the main thing about these aspects isn't whether they cost less or more, but that they represent advances and advantages -- and I think they mostly do, except for the brakes thing. And I would have tended to assume that was what primarily drove these changes, not the cost saving. Maybe the answer varies according to which part of Honda/Acura we're talking about. Maybe it starts in the technology/development divisions, where they have people who just love coming up with better and simpler features and designs. Then it gets to the business part of the company, where "probably" the larger consideration is cost. I'm just making up all of this, but that would be my guess.

About the climate control buttons for recirculation on the old Acuras -- honestly I never did get the hang of those. :donno:
So any change from those couldn't be bad.

Antennas: Being a NY City person, I always assumed the reason for the change was that the old kind of antennas kept getting vandalized. (Maybe that was what you meant?) Oh yes, I remember that then they started making the old kind retractable, which I guess solved that. But, if there were a "fixed mast antenna" on the roof, wouldn't we be back to the vandalism?

About the interior room: As you say, it's great to increase the room without making the car bigger. But....makes me think of the TL, because that's not exactly what they did. They decreased the car's length but increased its width, making it a car of extremely unusual proportions. Why did they make it so wide? Maybe mainly for interior room, I don't know. But it impairs the handling, or at least my sense of the car's handling (probably reduces body roll, though), and to me it throws off the driver's sense of the car. I would guess it's the main reason that most people find the TSX's handling better (not just TSX fanatics) and that most people seem to find the TSX a more "fun" car -- a bigger reason than the weight difference or anything else.

About the TSX's brakes: If Honda/Acura was going by what they thought was "adequate," I think they made a mistake.

[kiteboy]

If you look at polls asking about favourite or least used features on the TSX, you will find that there is balanced response of answers. Which shows what a good job the product planners at Honda did with the feature set of the TSX, in both including the right things and omitting less important things for the bulk of the buying public.

This is particularly necessary for Acura, since they offer few option packages with each model.

[bob shiftright]

About paying an extra $3K for those things, yes, it would vary a lot. I'd be happy to pay extra for the better brakes and for some other things, but I could care less about the high beams. I'd gladly pay a lot extra, though, for LOW beams that were more to my liking. Which is right in line with your point: Honda/Acura seems to have done a good job catering to the bulk of their market. They seem to have put in enough of everything to make us basically happy.


To put it in context, the US Accord EX 4-cylinder 5-speed has a sticker price of $22,190.

How much do other manufacturers charge for the additional "whistles 'n bells"?

BMW asks $430 for folding rear seats, $635 for HIDs, $455 for heated seats and $1320 for leather. GM charges $915 for the 6-speed on the Corvette, VW charges $1253 on the Passat. VW also charges $247 for stability control. 17" wheels are $666 extra on a Volvo. Most of the Euros also charge extra for metallic paint, standard on all the TSXs. Maybe $1000.

Add about $125 for the strut tower brace and maybe $200 for the extra year/12,000 miles warranty. That's $5000+ in "whistles n' bells", so a 4-cylinder Honda Accord EX that is optioned like a TSX "should" list for about $27,000.

Which, not so amazingly, it DOES! :)

So even if the TSX is nothing but a very well-equipped Honda Accord, it's priced exactly like a very well-equipped Honda Accord would be priced!

[O. W. Kone]

Larch and Kiteboy - perhaps my expectations are a different than most people - when it comes to brakes and tires IMO "adequate" is not enough. I would prefer better tires and brakes if I have to give creature comforst like up dual temp control and heated seats for example.

TSX is too new to show brake problems - I would hazard a guess that in about 3-4 years there will complaints about warped rear disks mostly from those who would rather take the creature comforts over the brakes and tires. Why? Because IMO this is the same demographic who are most un-informed about proper braking techniques like when going down hill or rapid stops just below the threshold of the anti-locks kicking in.

[larchmont]

Larch and Kiteboy - perhaps my expectations are different than most people - when it comes to brakes and tires IMO "adequate" is not enough. I would prefer better tires and brakes if I have to give creature comforst like up dual temp control and heated seats for example.

TSX is too new to show brake problems - I would hazard a guess that in about 3-4 years there will complaints about warped rear disks mostly from those who would rather take the creature comforts over the brakes and tires. Why? Because IMO this is the same demographic who are most un-informed about proper braking techniques like when going down hill or rapid stops just below the threshold of the anti-locks kicking in.
I basically agree. As I said, if Honda/Acura was going by what's "adequate," they made a mistake.

But I'll be surprised if there are such widespread problems a few years down the road. I'd guess maybe some but not a lot. Why? Because while Honda/Acura can make mistakes, I don't think it's likely they'd screw up so big-time.

[hip]

Larch and Kiteboy - I would hazard a guess that in about 3-4 years there will complaints about warped rear disks mostly from those who would rather take the creature comforts over the brakes and tires. Why? Because IMO this is the same demographic who are most un-informed about proper braking techniques like when going down hill or rapid stops just below the threshold of the anti-locks kicking in.

Have to disagree with you on this one. Going down hill or rapid stops should not cause warped rotors. Undersized pads, inadequate ventilation or slamming on hot brakes repeatedly within short distances will. Even activating anti-locks won't warp the brakes as these are engaged for short durations.

Under most driving conditions including excessive stop and go traffic, the TSX should not encounter any difficulties. However, over time if you drive in nothing but stop and go, I would venture to guess even a Porsche will develop abnormal brake pad wear patterns which might lead to warpage.

However, if your concern is based on really pushing the limits like in autocross or similar, I agree, you need to "beef up' the braking system as the car was not obviously intended for that type of driving. If you are looking for something more hard core, you either improve what you have or you find a car more suitable to your tastes and driving style.

Sounds like you should have bought a Mitsu Evo or Subaru WRX or similar?

BTW, I've never heard of anycar that had warped rear disks, fronts yes, but never rear?

[kiteboy]

if I have to give creature comforst like up dual temp control and heated seats for example.

TSX is too new to show brake problems - I would hazard a guess that in about 3-4 years there will complaints about warped rear disks mostly from those who would rather take the creature comforts over the brakes and tires. Why? Because IMO this is the same demographic who are most un-informed about proper braking techniques like when going down hill or rapid stops just below the threshold of the anti-locks kicking in.

1. If your priorities are in that order, (like Hip said), you should be shopping a different car.

2. If you have evidence of Accords or other Honda sedans equipped with small rear discs having such problems, let's see it. Otherwise, you are speculating.

Further, if the TSX rear brakes will warp under such trivial conditions, we would have seen them by now; there are some people with 60k miles on their cars already. Any problems tend to be magnified on these forums, where the members tend to be a) enthusiasts who push their cars harder than the average joe, b) more discerning and vocal about problems they experience.

[larchmont]

.....Sounds like you should have bought a Mitsu Evo or Subaru WRX or similar?.....

If your priorities are in that order, (like Hip said), you should be shopping a different car....

Not if he's a person of fine tastes. :D

Actually I'm serious, although I don't mean to be slandering like about 100,000 people. Suppose you want a high-quality, fairly refined car that's also very high on the fun scale and no slouch on performance, and in this price range. What do you get?

I don't mean that just as a rhetorical question, because for all I know there might be good answers to that question besides "TSX," and if so I'd be interested to hear what they are. But I know there aren't too many. And from what I understand, the Evo and WRX don't make that list.

[O. W. Kone]

2. If you have evidence of Accords or other Honda sedans equipped with small rear discs having such problems, let's see it. Otherwise, you are speculating.



Perhaps lesson in english is in order --- I said I will hazard a guess - that is speculating. I am talking about the TSX and not comparing it another product.

Also, just because someone is pointing out potential weak points in a product it means just that - potential weak points. Every product has design points that can be improved upon. Improvements in braking and any part of handling is always a welcome improvement.

Hip, if I wanted a car like the ones you mention I would have bought it. If I wanted creature comforts over a good handling I would have bought a Lincoln towncar. But I chose the TSX as a compromise between the two - that does not mean I gave up my opinions about potential weak points in its design.

[larchmont]

....if I wanted a car like the ones you mention I would have bought it. If I wanted creature comforts over a good handling I would have bought a Lincoln towncar. But I chose the TSX as a compromise between the two.....
That's exactly what I figured, because that's basically what I did too, and what I've always done -- ever since I saw the drawbacks of my old 320i (and knew the drawbacks of those boats because that's mostly what my family used to have). And having found the 320i to be not refined enough -- not quite refined enough (not to mention a reliability nightmare), I have no problem understanding that to someone who's looking for a balance of all these qualities, cars like the WRX and Evo don't even make the first cut.

As, as I said, for people of this mind, there are amazingly few cars that do make even the first cut. And if you also want top-notch reliability, the list might well shrink almost to just one car.

Which means we're stuck with the TSX. And with kicking its a$$. :D

[Ferg]

Not if he's a person of fine tastes. :D

Actually I'm serious, although I don't mean to be slandering like about 100,000 people. Suppose you want a high-quality, fairly refined car that's also very high on the fun scale and no slouch on performance, and in this price range. What do you get?


Just some cars off the top of my head that could be considered high-quality, fairly refined, high on the fun scale, and no slouch in performance.

Mazda6
Mazda Miata
MazdaSpeed MX-5
BMW 325i
Audi A4
Nissan Maxima
Nissan Altima
Infiniti G35
Acura RSX
Volkswagen Jetta 1.8T or VR6
Volkswagen Golf VR6
Volkswagen R32
Volkswagen Turbo Beetle
Honda Accord EX V6
Honda S2000
Honda Civic Si
Nissan 350Z
next generation Subura Legacy Turbo
Mercedes C230
Infiniti IS300
Toyota Celica
Toyota MR2
Scion tC
Hyundai Tiburon
Volvo S40
Mini Cooper S

...and many more

[larchmont]

Just some cars off the top of my head that could be considered high-quality, fairly refined, high on the fun scale, and no slouch in performance.....
I was hoping somebody would do something like this. Thanks Ferg.

But mainly, WELCOME BACK!!! Been a while, missed you! Hope you've been enjoying your.....I forget, what car was it that you got? :D

OK, let's go down the list.....


Mazda6 -- I might give you that one, but IMO it doesn't quite make it on quietnesss
Mazda Miata -- I guess we have different ideas of "refined" -- doesn't come close to making it on ride or quietness (although I like it).
MazdaSpeed MX-5 -- as above (although I like it too)

BMW 325i -- I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, but in my book the 325i doesn't quite make it, just as my old 320i didn't quite either -- ride or quietness. The "breaking point" for me on this is exactly the little cusp between the 3-series and the TSX. I know most people wouldn't agree on this "breaking point," and even among those who do, a lot of people would put the BMW and the TSX in the opposite order from how I regard them.

Audi A4 -- yes, absolutely -- but reliability disqualifies it
Nissan Maxima -- IMO it's a boat, which eliminates the fun factor
Nissan Altima -- ditto
Infiniti G35 -- you call that "refined"? I think it's a brute (had one for a few days recently)
Acura RSX -- again, I guess different ideas of "refined." To me, the ride, noise, and seating are extremely unrefined.
Volkswagen Jetta 1.8T or VR6 -- IMO, no again on ride and quiet. And then of course there's the reliability factor.
Volkswagen Golf VR6 -- ditto
Volkswagen R32 -- don't know it, but I imagine "ditto"
Volkswagen Turbo Beetle -- ditto
Honda Accord EX V6 -- see Maxima, Altima
Honda S2000 -- not even close on ride and noise
Honda Civic Si -- ditto, although closer
Nissan 350Z -- a special car, but among the very lowest of ALL cars on ride and noise.
next generation Subura Legacy Turbo -- we'll have to see
Mercedes C230 -- like the A4, yes absolutely -- but reliability disqualifies it
Infiniti IS300 -- I guess you mean the Lexus -- I and most others probably wouldn't rate the interior at this level, but I'd give you that one anyway.
Toyota Celica -- no way, the culprits again being ride and noise
Toyota MR2 -- ditto
Scion tC -- maybe, we'll have to see
Hyundai Tiburon -- same objections -- ride, noise. And probably the basic quality isn't up to the level.
Volvo S40 (and I'll add the S60) -- maybe, probably; but again, reliability blows it out of the water.
Mini Cooper S -- ride, noise. Also I think most people would say the tiny rear seating disqualifies this on "refinement."


Obviously, the main thing here is that we have different concepts of "refinement."

I know that particularly what I say about the 3-series is controversial if not worse. But it's truly my take. The 3-series wasn't quite "refined" enough for me to even consider. The TSX was just enough over that bar.

But in terms of the basic question, that's just a quibble. Because let's even add the 3-series to the list (which most people would), and still it's a very short list.

[Ferg]

Hey larch, thanks for the welcome back!

You asked for a list, and you got it buddy! :devil:

Most of those cars are sports cars, and as such have tight suspensions. But you didn't say you wanted a supple ride you said "...high-quality, fairly refined car that's also very high on the fun scale and no slouch on performance, and in this price range.

Ergo, my list. You also didn't mention that the cars had to be "reliable". After all, some of the most "refined" cars throughout history have had crummy "reliability" (several Jags and Benz's pop into my head for instance).

Couple quick points:

-- To me, refined takes on a different definition for each car. For instance, I think the Miata and S2000 are very refined cars. But, you can't get away from the fact that they are roadsters, and have been tuned for that purpose. Heck, they were built from the ground up for that purpose. They aren't trying to be entry-level lux sedans with supple rides. To me, an S2000 is just as refined as a TSX, but just fundamentally different. The same way a Boxster is as refined as a Lexus ES -- just in a different way.

-- As for "fun", you disqualified some cars based on size. I would say that cars like the Maxima are quite fun. Get behind the wheel once, and step on that puppy. Pure acceleration from stoplight to stoplight can be a hell of a lot of fun, hence the muscle car craze. GTO's didn't corner well, but they were sure fun! The TSX naturally out-corners a Maxima, but the Max is way faster. Doesn't mean the Max, IMHO, is any less fun. Same goes for the Altima and the Accord.

-- Also, the VW's definitely give the TSX a run for it's money in the ride/handling department. Quality is an issue (hence my long departed Jetta and New Beetle), but those cars handle and ride as well as nearly any other "sporty" FWD cars.

-- If you were going to disqualify the Audi for something, I'd think it would be price. Yeah, they have quality problems, but no one is keeping an Audi for 10 years. :D Or maybe they are....

-- The Tiburon has a pretty good ride, and handles well considering it's exceptionally simple suspension. Noise may be a factor, but then again it's a sports car. No denying that it's a fun car to drive. Even made Sports Compact Car's "Eight Great Rides" list (couple years in a row if I remember correctly).

-- And yes, I meant "Lexus IS300" not Infiniti. Slip of the brain cogs, I guess. :)

-- Since when does a car need big rear seats to be refined?

-- I don't know of any reliability probs with the S40, and besides it's totally redesigned right now, much like the TSX (which, as we know, has had it's fair share of problems -- even tho most of them seem to be "first model year" type probs).

-- Don't even get me started on the 325i. rrrrrrrrr6

:russ: I'll shut up now.

Ferg

[larchmont]

Thanks for actually taking my post seriously, Ferg!
I mean, I did, but I didn't necessarily think you or anybody else had to.
After all, I was coming from almost the same kind of place that once moved me to start a thread explaining how the TSX might be the best car up to $80K. :D

And I was serious about that too. Because it all depends on one's criteria.

In this thread, I was just trying to mind-read what OWK's criteria were -- and he hasn't (yet) said that I was wrong. And to a great extent I was "projecting" (in the psychological sense), because it seemed maybe his criteria were very similar to mine, whether or not he thinks of it in the same terms.

Many people would have very different ideas of "fun," "refinement," and everything else I'm talking about including "quality." As for reliability, that's right, I didn't have it as a basic criterion here because I didn't see any indication that OWK cared much about it, but once I started writing my comments, I couldn't resist noting how most of the "yes" cars fail on reliability, which makes the list even shorter for someone who cares a lot about that. For the sake of this thread, it's OK by me if you add back the ones that fail on reliability; it still winds up being a very short list IMO. About the S40, sure, we don't know yet that it's unreliable. But in view of Volvo's recent track record, I say we have to assume or at least expect the worst until proven otherwise. (I can't imagine you'd much disagree with that.)

So.....I was just using those words (fun, refinement, quality) to get a handle on what I imagined OWK was going by. I didn't even necessarily assume that he would define the words the same way I do, just that this was a way for me to start picking cars that might suit someone like him -- because people started saying that maybe he should have gotten a different car, and I thought their suggestions were off the mark. I had to pick some terms to explain what I was going by, and I picked those terms. But let's not get too hung up on them. The basic thing I was trying to do was to show that the list of cars that someone like OWK (and me, BTW) could consider was a very short list and didn't include the cars that a lot of people might assume.

OWK, we're waiting for you! :D

[Ferg]

Oh, absolutely agreed. Of course, if you look closely at my list, you will see a common theme -- most of those cars are pretty fun/powerful in some way or another. I have a very heavy bias towards cars that are fun right now. The wife unit and I don't have any kids, so I don't need "family transportation". Plus, I put so many miles on a car that I'm not likely to keep one for more than two or three years, so long-term reliability is not as critical of an issue as it may be for others. I already have 10K on the 325i, and I've had it just over 90 days.

[larchmont]

.....I have a very heavy bias towards cars that are fun right now. The wife unit and I don't have any kids, so I don't need "family transportation". Plus, I put so many miles on a car that I'm not likely to keep one for more than two or three years, so long-term reliability is not as critical of an issue as it may be for others. I already have 10K on the 325i, and I've had it just over 90 days.
Sounds pretty cool.

And, good luck for having the 325i last 80-120K miles! :D

We'll be waiting with bated breath.

Actually, I will be. I wouldn't mind "progress reports" every 10K or whatever.
BMW supposedly is getting its reliability act together (although the latest from Consumer Reports throws mud on that), and the way Ferg is using the car, it's putting it to a bit of a test. Although you can never tell a whole lot from a sample size of 1, I'd be very interested in this bit of data. Plus, of course, it's Ferg. :D

[pocketkiller]

One thing I don't think anyone pointed out is that the rear disc brakes are in fact DAINTY in visual size, but they are more than adequate for a FWD car like the TSX. As stated before they may perform only 20% of the stopping power. Therefore H/A knows they can put cheaper rear brakes on the TSX without sacrificing any performance. The focus then shifts to the FRONT brakes. They are in fact much better than the rear, but can still be improved. IE 04 TL with Brembro brakes stops this 3600 pound car in just 111 feet from 60-0 mph. Just 2 feet more than a corvette. So why not do the same for the TSX (which performs the same stop in ~127 feet).

[Dan Martin]

Why do you specify FWD? Why would they need to be different if it were RWD?

[pocketkiller]

Why do you specify FWD? Why would they need to be different if it were RWD?

In a FWD car the weight distribution is usually 60:40, and therefore especially when stopping the weight distributes dramatically toward the front of the car perhaps in a ratio of 70:30. Therefore the front brakes need to be much bigger in a FWD car because they do 70% of the stopping. If the car was RWD the weight distribution is generally 50:50 or 55:45, so during braking the front end carries approximately 60% of the weight of the car...so the point is somewhat mute on RWD. Thats why you will find RWD cars where brakes are usually the same size front to back, but on FWD the front brakes are always larger than the rear.

[blueiedgod]

This is an interesting duscussion. And, I agree that Honda is generally known for weaker brakes. That is why there is aftermarket out there. Brembo, Hawk, EBC, Power slot and others make aftermarket rotors and pads. If someone values the safety as much as they say they do, they would go out there and buy what they deem appropriate. The EBC pads are $69 for the front axle and $49 for the rear axle. Brembo Rotors are about $70 each, or EBC grooved are $240 per set. The price is 1-2% of the purchase price most of you paid for the TSX. I don't think it will break (brake??) the bank. Yes, it would cost Honda less to put beefier brakes, but when you multiply the $100 per car that it would cost them, they are looking at millions. The car stops fine by most standards.

[larchmont]

.....Yes, it would cost Honda less to put beefier brakes, but when you multiply the $100 per car that it would cost them, they are looking at millions. The car stops fine by most standards.
But if it enabled them to charge $100 more for the car.....
(I'd pay it -- wouldn't you?)

But yes, as you say, it stops fine by most standards. And I've been more and more satisfied and impressed with the braking as time goes on. It genuinely seem better and better. Don't know if it's a real phenomenon (like some kind of very extended break-in), or if I'm just getting better with the car, but it's definitely something; it's not just that I'm getting used to how crappy it is.

At this point, I'd even say that the TSX braking is very good. At first, all I would have said is "OK."

[O. W. Kone]

Thanks for actually taking my post seriously, Ferg!
I mean, I did, but I didn't necessarily think you or anybody else had to.
After all, I was coming from almost the same kind of place that once moved me to start a thread explaining how the TSX might be the best car up to $80K. :D

And I was serious about that too. Because it all depends on one's criteria.

In this thread, I was just trying to mind-read what OWK's criteria were -- and he hasn't (yet) said that I was wrong. And to a great extent I was "projecting" (in the psychological sense), because it seemed maybe his criteria were very similar to mine, whether or not he thinks of it in the same terms.

Many people would have very different ideas of "fun," "refinement," and everything else I'm talking about including "quality." As for reliability, that's right, I didn't have it as a basic criterion here because I didn't see any indication that OWK cared much about it, but once I started writing my comments, I couldn't resist noting how most of the "yes" cars fail on reliability, which makes the list even shorter for someone who cares a lot about that. For the sake of this thread, it's OK by me if you add back the ones that fail on reliability; it still winds up being a very short list IMO. About the S40, sure, we don't know yet that it's unreliable. But in view of Volvo's recent track record, I say we have to assume or at least expect the worst until proven otherwise. (I can't imagine you'd much disagree with that.)

So.....I was just using those words (fun, refinement, quality) to get a handle on what I imagined OWK was going by. I didn't even necessarily assume that he would define the words the same way I do, just that this was a way for me to start picking cars that might suit someone like him -- because people started saying that maybe he should have gotten a different car, and I thought their suggestions were off the mark. I had to pick some terms to explain what I was going by, and I picked those terms. But let's not get too hung up on them. The basic thing I was trying to do was to show that the list of cars that someone like OWK (and me, BTW) could consider was a very short list and didn't include the cars that a lot of people might assume.

OWK, we're waiting for you! :D

I had not been paying attention to this thread - I am late in my reply.

My required attributes for a daily driver are a balance of reliability, decent acceleration, better than average braking, cornering, ride quality and gas mileage in the 4 door sedan and TSX price class. After putting on 2200 miles on the car I would rate the car as better than average in cornering, ride quality; slightly better than average in braking and gas mileage (though I expect mileage to improve with further engine break-in); and reliability yet to be determined. The only other car that I consider superior in reliability would be the Toyota and Lexus. However, for some inexplicable reasons I find the Lexus and Toyota lacking something in overall appeal that I cannot explain.

This thread started off with my comment on dainty brakes - specially non ventilated rear discs. I still believe Acura should have used ventilated discs in the rear and overall larger discs all around for better breaking. As for the reliability of the rear discs (potential of warping) only time will tell. I would gladly pay a bit more and/or give up a creature comfort for improved brakes and lesser body lean.

If I wanted a car for creature comforts only I would have opted for a Cadlilac or Lincoln Town Car. If I opted for a fun car I would opt for a Porsche Carrera. Either class of car even owning both is well within my means but I have other more deserving priorities. I wanted a daily driver that met most of my needs and TSX fell in that category.

[larchmont]

.....for some inexplicable reasons I find the Lexus and Toyota lacking something in overall appeal that I cannot explain.....
Well, how about if I try.....

Toyotas and Lexuses, in general although with perhaps the occasional exception (like the IS300 and I guess the SC430), aren't as much "driver's cars" as Hondas and Acuras. They're less sporty, and less "fun." They're not worse on power (I don't think), but they're less firm on handling and suspension. I imagine the main reason is for greater comfort -- but to me, that kind of ride isn't comfortable; it's really nothing.

I know that a lot of people disagree, because Toyota and Lexus sell a lot of cars. But a lot of people agree. And my guess is that OWK is one of them.

[O. W. Kone]

Well, how about if I try.....

Toyotas and Lexuses, in general although with perhaps the occasional exception (like the IS300 and I guess the SC430), aren't as much "driver's cars" as Hondas and Acuras. They're less sporty, and less "fun." They're not worse on power (I don't think), but they're less firm on handling and suspension. I imagine the main reason is for greater comfort -- but to me, that kind of ride isn't comfortable; it's really nothing.

I know that a lot of people disagree, because Toyota and Lexus sell a lot of cars. But a lot of people agree. And my guess is that OWK is one of them.

Larch no there is more to it - I guess I will put them as intangibles - difficult to explain - overall appeal/elegance/attraction first impression kind of phenomenon. Something akin to a jewel box vs a very nicely finished but functional box difference.

[O. W. Kone]

Larch no there is more to it - I guess I will put them as intangibles - difficult to explain - overall appeal/elegance/attraction, first impression kind of phenomenon. Something akin to a jewel box vs a very nicely finished but functional box difference.

[larchmont]

Larch no there is more to it - I guess I will put them as intangibles - difficult to explain - overall appeal/elegance/attraction first impression kind of phenomenon. Something akin to a jewel box vs a very nicely finished but functional box difference.
Well, I'll sure buy that too. Although it doesn't really apply to Lexus.

I do agree with your overall take, but it's ironic, because most people feel Lexus is (way) above Acura on overall appeal/elegance/attraction etc.

And the Lexus ES300 (now the 330, which I haven't tried) was much more than a functional box but still had the drawbacks we're talking about.

As you said, some of it is hard to explain, plus of course it's subjective.