[harddrivin1le]

This FULL SIZE BUICK PARK AVENUE weighs 3,800 pounds, makes 205 HP, 230 Lb-Ft of torque and is EPA rated @ 20 city/29 highway - with a 4 speed autmatic and a "low tech" 2 valve/cylinder, 3.8 liter pushrod V6 with roots dating back to 1962!!!

And it does that with regular unleaded (87 octane).

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/buick/parkavenue/index.html?tid=edmunds.n.mmindex.content..0.Buick*

 

[wiz]

What is your obsession with fuel mileage?

 

[harddrivin1le]

What is your obsession with fuel mileage?

I simply can't help but LAUGH when a "high tech," 4 cylinder/6 speed car can't better a Buick Park Avenue in terms of highway fuel economy, despite the fact that the Buick is 600 pounds heavier, makes more HP, more torque, uses a relatively inefficient automatic and a "low tech," 3.8 liter, 2 valve per cylinder, pushrod V6 with roots dating back to 1962.

Where's all that "high tech efficiency" that supposedly accompanies DOHC/4 valve/variable valve timing engines?

I'm not seeing it.

 

[TSXray]

I guess doing "more with less", is a more appropriate term for Honda.....

 

[harddrivin1le]

I guess doing "more with less", is a more appropriate term for Honda.....

But they're not doing "more wiht less."

The TSX is SLOWER than this V6 Impala and the Impala still gets BETTER highway mileage - using cheaper, 87 octane fuel and while offering more passenger and luggage space!!!!

And the Impala uses an "inefficient," 2 valve/cylinder, pushrod V6 with iron cylinder heads and iron block!!!!

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/che...id=edmunds.n.prices.leftsidenav..8.Chevrolet*

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1838.shtml

 

[jackzod]

yawn...

 

[Ray]

the Park Avenue is a very nice car like driving a cheap version of cadillac.

 

[harddrivin1le]

the Park Avenue is a very nice car like driving a cheap version of cadillac.

I wouldn't buy a Park Avenue or a Chevy Impala....

I'm merely demonstrating the fact that both their fuel mileage and straight line acceleration potential are ~ equal to those of the TSX.

A geezer in a Park Ave with a heavy right foot is going to give the hot-shot TSX driver more than a little to think about.

 

[TeC]

You believe too many things that you read. Mileage ratings for many cars, especially domestics, are complete bullshit. My dad's lesabre use to claim something around 21/29 too. But we had that car for about 8 years and I think it's a bit closer to 15/20. Camaro = 30mpg freeway? LOL.

 

[harddrivin1le]

You believe too many things that you read. Mileage ratings for many cars, especially domestics, are complete bullshit. My dad's lesabre use to claim something around 21/29 too. But we had that car for about 8 years and I think it's a bit closer to 15/20. Camaro = 30mpg freeway? LOL.

Park Avenue fuel Economy Testimonial per ROAD AND TRACK senior editor/Park Avenue "winter car" owner:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=26&article_id=26&page_number=1

"...On the trip to Indianapolis and back — about six hours of Interstate each way — I set the cruise control at 74 mph and averaged exactly 28.5 miles per gallon.

In the year since then, we've continued to average about 24 mpg in mixed city/highway driving, and actually squeaked past 29 mpg on a road trip to Atlanta. This is not too much at odds with the original window sticker (still in the glovebox), which shows a city/highway EPA rating of 19/29 mpg.

In any case, I stand by my previous figures, but have to admit the mileage amazes even me (yes, the sage of northwestern Rock County), so I can easily understand some of our readers having doubts, even if they are dead wrong and should be ashamed of themselves for ever questioning my superb math skills just because I barely passed high school algebra.

I mentioned this whole controversy to my friend Steve Kimball, a former R&T staffer and knowledgeable American engine nut who now does market research for a number of Detroit car companies. "The GM 3.8 V-6," he said, "is simply one of the most fuel-efficient engines ever designed. Also, you've probably noticed the final gearing on your Buick is fairly tall and the shift points are conservative. That helps, too."

I had noticed. The car likes to shift early and torque its way down the road, downshifting only when you put some boot into it. The drivetrain is genteel rather than frantic in nature.

...so our Buick — which is classified by the EPA, for comparison shopping purposes, as "LARGE" — gets fuel mileage that is not exactly dismal for a big car, and, in fact, is about the same as your average Acura, Saturn, Saab, etc."

How the EPA rates fuel economy:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#estimates

I've personally seen 29.1 MPG from my LS1, 6 speed Z28 @ a steady state, 70 MPH cruise (with the tach reading a mere 1,500 RPM in 6th).

Anything else you need to educate me on?

 

[TeC]

Nope. But I love how long your posts are compared to mine. Now that's effort.

 

[Bolshoi125]

Wow I always see this guy on every hate forum on this website. He's really serious about it. Do you post on other websites like s2ki or 3si.org etc. Just curious.

 

[Bolshoi125]

But even a lawn mower can beat my car on gas mileage, or a Ls1 on HP. You don't have to put this anti TSX on this website. You're at TSX club.com not ihatetsx.com. And why do you care if we have this underpowered , bad gas mileage car and posting this links about how bad our car is. You're not paying for our cars buddy, we are! So it's our problem if you think our car sucks.

 

[TSXray]

Well you must appreciate his comments for what they are. I too am suprised to see how much time he puts into his research. His attacks toward the TSX's lack or inefficient use of engine power is noted. But what you don't see is how it compares to other cars in it's class.

He might as well compare what type of rims other cars have and how much lighter or better looking they are. My point is that the car isn't perfect. It has a bundle of other great features, or better yet "a Jack or all traits" better suites its description.

 

[harddrivin1le]

Well you must appreciate his comments for what they are. I too am suprised to see how much time he puts into his research. His attacks toward the TSX's lack or inefficient use of engine power is noted. But what you don't see is how it compares to other cars in it's class.

He might as well compare what type of rims other cars have and how much lighter or better looking they are. My point is that the car isn't perfect. It has a bundle of other great features, or better yet "a Jack or all traits" better suites its description.

The TSX is a nice car that could be a much NICER car with the Accord's V6 (preferably a "premium fuel version" with 10.5:1 and a reduced backpressure exhaust system).

That combo should yield 21 city/31 highway with the 6 speed. (The heavier Accord V6 6 speed is rated @ 20/30 and that's with a lower compression ratio (suited for 87 octane) and less than optimal exhaust).

That could transform the TSX into a 14.3 sec/99 MPH car...That's moving (though no more so than a V6/5 speed Altima). I'd also like to see a helical limited slip diff like the one used in the CL Type S 6 speed...

 

[NIGHTHAWK-TSX]

I know a vehicle that you never have to worry about mpg. Can you guess which vehicle?

 

[harddrivin1le]

I know a vehicle that you never have to worry about mpg. Can you guess which vehicle?

I'm not "worrying."

I look @ the ratio of peak engine HP: MPG as good means by which to judge total vehicle efficiency.

And I don't care what "market segment" a particular vehicle happens to be in.

A Z06 Corvette (NOT an "economy car") and the TSX are VERY SIMILAR in terms of vehicle weight and drag coefficient. The TSX's frontal area is perhaps slightly larger, but that's moot relative to the speeds the EPA uses in their testing. Plus, the Vette's tires are much WIDER, which increases rolling resistance.

Comparing 6 speed to 6 speed (the only way a Z06 can be had), we see that the Corvette produced 405 SAE NET HP and is EPA rated @ 19 city/28 highway.

The TSX produces LESS THAN HALF the Z06's peak HP and roughly 40% (!!!!!!!) of the Z06's peak torque. Yet, the TSX is rated at just 2 MPG more City and 1 MPG more highway.

Relatively speaking, the TSX is a VERY INEFFICIENT car.

PERIOD.

Adding to the irony is the fact that the TSX's engine uses "efficient" architecture, which includes 4 valve/DOHC heads and variable valve timing. Additionally, the TSX engine is a mere 2.4 liters compared to the ZO6's 5.7 liters.

 

[Haris]

Dude, give up. You've said this millions of times. If you think TSX is inefficient car, then ok. If you believe that, fine, just don't post it hunderds of times. Everybody has probably read this and don't care about it.

 

[harddrivin1le]

Dude, give up. You've said this millions of times. If you think TSX is inefficient car, then ok. If you believe that, fine, just don't post it hunderds of times. Everybody has probably read this and don't care about it.

If you (and others) TRULY "don't care" then you wouldn't respond.

Why does a 6 speed TSX get just 1 MPG more highway than a 405 HP, 5.7 liter V8 ZO6 Corvette?

 

[NIGHTHAWK-TSX]

I only made a simple statement which in turn asked a simple question. No need for the lenthy explanation. Can you guess which vehicle i'm referring to?