|
|
|
|
 |
Mr. Taggart
 |
|
So what does it bring to the table that the TSX doesn't? I get the lower sticker price but that is it? As DCR quoted in another thread how does this vehicle replace the RSX in Acura's lineup, if that is the purpose?
Why not just bring back the Gen 1 TSX and be done with it?
I wonder if they talked about strategy at the event and how this fits in and or what gap it fills?
|
CarmB
|
|
The point behind the ILX, as far as I can determine is to provide a car that is more appropriate for today's market conditions than the TSX. Let's face it, times are tough economically, not so much here in Canada but in the US there is less consumer confidence. Meanwhile fuel costs are rising and it has reached the point where even folks making a decent wage will factor in fuel economy when purchasing a new car.
So the ILX needs to deliver similar levels of performance as the current TSX and similar refinement, inside and out. The TSX is built on a more capable platform but the ILX doesn't need to exactly match the TSX, just get close enough to satisfy the average consumer. If this happens, then Honda has an Acura model that competes better in terms of initial purchase price and fuel consumption.
You have to think of it as trying to hit certain targets in terms of comfort, performance, refinement yet do it with a smaller, less expensive, more fuel efficient vehicle. This is Honda's response to what I think the company has correctly identified is the reality of current market conditions.
The key model is of course the base 2.0L automatic. It sounds as if this car gets it done. Good price. Nice interior. Adequate performance. Adequate interior space. Better gas mileage. It makes more sense than the TSX at this time. I think what will happen is that consumers will test drive the TSX and also the ILX and likely find, in many instances, that the ILX is enough car and worth buying considering lower cost of ownership all around. Keep in mind that in addition to better fuel economy, the TSX 4 lists the recommended fuel as Premium whereas the ILX 2L runs on regular if it's anything like the 2L in my CSX, which I'm betting it is.
The idea, I think, is to offer a car that is more competitive in terms of bang for the buck and efficiency than the TSX, yet not force so many compromises as to lose consumers because of them.
|
CarmB
|
|
The point behind the ILX, as far as I can determine is to provide a car that is more appropriate for today's market conditions than the TSX. Let's face it, times are tough economically, not so much here in Canada but in the US there is less consumer confidence. Meanwhile fuel costs are rising and it has reached the point where even folks making a decent wage will factor in fuel economy when purchasing a new car.
So the ILX needs to deliver similar levels of performance as the current TSX and similar refinement, inside and out. The TSX is built on a more capable platform but the ILX doesn't need to exactly match the TSX, just get close enough to satisfy the average consumer. If this happens, then Honda has an Acura model that competes better in terms of initial purchase price and fuel consumption.
You have to think of it as trying to hit certain targets in terms of comfort, performance, refinement yet do it with a smaller, less expensive, more fuel efficient vehicle. This is Honda's response to what I think the company has correctly identified is the reality of current market conditions.
The key model is of course the base 2.0L automatic. It sounds as if this car gets it done. Good price. Nice interior. Adequate performance. Adequate interior space. Better gas mileage. It makes more sense than the TSX at this time. I think what will happen is that consumers will test drive the TSX and also the ILX and likely find, in many instances, that the ILX is enough car and worth buying considering lower cost of ownership all around. Keep in mind that in addition to better fuel economy, the TSX 4 lists the recommended fuel as Premium whereas the ILX 2L runs on regular if it's anything like the 2L in my CSX, which I'm betting it is.
The idea, I think, is to offer a car that is more competitive in terms of bang for the buck and efficiency than the TSX, yet not force so many compromises as to lose consumers because of them.
|
ipribadi
|
|
I still think the ILX's Premium package is overpriced thus getting to cloase (only $810 diff) to a TSX base which is at about the same feature content.
Yes the best deal is the ILX base and the ILX 2.4 6MT, but everyone knows the majority of the target market doesn't want MT and at least have leather in their near luxury car.
|
CarmB
|
|
ipribadi wrote:
I still think the ILX's Premium package is overpriced thus getting to cloase (only $810 diff) to a TSX base which is at about the same feature content.
Yes the best deal is the ILX base and the ILX 2.4 6MT, but everyone knows the majority of the target market doesn't want MT and at least have leather in their near luxury car.
|
Packages have more mark-up than the base price and as such the real-world price difference between a premium version of the ILX and the TSX would likely be significantly more than the official MSRP would imply. Consumer response will dictate how much more.
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
So what does it bring to the table that the TSX doesn't? I get the lower sticker price but that is it? As DCR quoted in another thread how does this vehicle replace the RSX in Acura's lineup, if that is the purpose? |
Fuel economy. The TSX is very heavy starting at 3400 lbs, while the ILX starts at just over 2900 lbs. The initial price is lower than the TSX, and the R20 engine can use 87 Octane fuel.
| Why not just bring back the Gen 1 TSX and be done with it? |
That won't work for several reasons. First, Acura is not going to bring back a body style that is almost 10 years old at this point. Second, the production lines and tooling have almost certainly all been altered to produce the 2G TSX. They aren't going to re-replicate the production lines for EU/JDM Accords of nearly a decade ago. Finally, the 1G TSX does not have the latest structural safety features as it is a pre-ACE technology design.
What I had hoped was that Acura would have tried to replicate the 1G TSX driving experience in the ILX. However, from the reviews that are out there, it seems like the ILX tuning emphasizes refinement and comfort over handling.
|
JeffX
|
|
atomiclightbulb wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
So what does it bring to the table that the TSX doesn't? I get the lower sticker price but that is it? As DCR quoted in another thread how does this vehicle replace the RSX in Acura's lineup, if that is the purpose? |
Fuel economy. The TSX is very heavy starting at 3400 lbs, while the ILX starts at just over 2900 lbs. The initial price is lower than the TSX, and the R20 engine can use 87 Octane fuel.
| Why not just bring back the Gen 1 TSX and be done with it? |
That won't work for several reasons. First, Acura is not going to bring back a body style that is almost 10 years old at this point. Second, the production lines and tooling have almost certainly all been altered to produce the 2G TSX. They aren't going to re-replicate the production lines for EU/JDM Accords of nearly a decade ago. Finally, the 1G TSX does not have the latest structural safety features as it is a pre-ACE technology design.
What I had hoped was that Acura would have tried to replicate the 1G TSX driving experience in the ILX. However, from the reviews that are out there, it seems like the ILX tuning emphasizes refinement and comfort over handling.
|
The ILX's actual handling isn't that far off from the 1st gen TSX - thanks to its light weight it has a pleasing tossability to it. It just seems to lack some of the polish of the TSX in terms of ride and dealing with challenging road surfaces, if only by a very small margin.
|
NealX
|
|
I love it when a contributor to the genesis of a new vehicle is a declining bar chart ... Still, I hope it does well for them enough to justify keeping a foot in the compact premium door and offer a screamer version in this or some future iteration.
Last edited by NealX on 04-26-2012 08:30
|
integrator
|
|
why is the ILX better? Answer: Less silvery plastic inside?
@ Jeff - I still believe they should have put the classic Honda front wishbone suspension in the ILX. Honda's struts never seem to have the same composure when the pavement moves away from ideal surfacing, I don't care what their marketing propaganda says.
|
danielgr
|
|
It's not supposed to be "better" (that depends on your priorities), but:
• cheaper : you can get one of these starting at 4K less than cheapest TSX, and the MT for 2k less)
• more fuel efficient : the r20 is about 8% more efficient (on paper, probably more in real life), the k24 is up 1mpg combined, and the hybrid.....
• Lighter and more compact, for those that have been complaining about the size and weight of the TSX for the past 4years...
Obviously, some people don't need any of these, others rather pay more to get this or that, others rather pay less because it ain't worthy for them, but that still the main points those differentiate the ILX from the TSX.
Better? Who said that, and who was he thinking about when he/she said it?
|
JeffX
|
|
integrator wrote:
why is the ILX better? Answer: Less silvery plastic inside?
@ Jeff - I still believe they should have put the classic Honda front wishbone suspension in the ILX. Honda's struts never seem to have the same composure when the pavement moves away from ideal surfacing, I don't care what their marketing propaganda says.
|
I completely agree and I also think this is why the ILX doesn't quite match the "polish" levels of the TSX. But with that said, Honda made a HUGE step in improving the operation and feel of their macpherson strut setup between the 8th and 9th generation Civic.
Also, to the question posed in the title of the original post, I don't think anybody claimed the ILX was a better car than the TSX.
|
JeffreynLA
|
|
danielgr wrote:
It's not supposed to be "better" (that depends on your priorities), but:
• cheaper : you can get one of these starting at 4K less than cheapest TSX, and the MT for 2k less)
• more fuel efficient : the r20 is about 8% more efficient (on paper, probably more in real life), the k24 is up 1mpg combined, and the hybrid.....
• Lighter and more compact, for those that have been complaining about the size and weight of the TSX for the past 4years...
Obviously, some people don't need any of these, others rather pay more to get this or that, others rather pay less because it ain't worthy for them, but that still the main points those differentiate the ILX from the TSX.
Better? Who said that, and who was he thinking about when he/she said it?
|
I might also add higher profit margins since it is US built, it will be less sensitive to the dollar/yen currency exchange like the TSX.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Just posed the question to get different takes of what people thought if the will indeed replace the TSX at some point in time, and if in any ways the car is better.
Is it a better entry level luxury car? Is it at the right price point for an entry level luxury car? How does one define an entry level luxury car? Does this become the lineup replace for what was the integra or the RSX?
Is it a better place to start at price and luxury points than the TSX?
How many actual 'entry level' luxury car buyers actually move up in the same brand?
How does the entry level luxury cars of other makes compare fit and finish wise to the rest of the lineup?
I guess I just don't see what hole this car fills as they have left gaping gaps with lack of engine and option choices, which given the competition you would think would be needed.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Just posed the question to get different takes of what people thought if the will indeed replace the TSX at some point in time, and if in any ways the car is better.
Is it a better entry level luxury car? Is it at the right price point for an entry level luxury car? How does one define an entry level luxury car? Does this become the lineup replace for what was the integra or the RSX?
Is it a better place to start at price and luxury points than the TSX?
How many actual 'entry level' luxury car buyers actually move up in the same brand?
How does the entry level luxury cars of other makes compare fit and finish wise to the rest of the lineup?
I guess I just don't see what hole this car fills as they have left gaping gaps with lack of engine and option choices, which given the competition you would think would be needed.
|
Just keep in my these are temporary power trains (that are actually doing an okay job according to Jeff's review). New ED powertrains are supposed to arrive pretty soon, probably before MMC.
|
integrator
|
|
Jeff wrote:
integrator wrote:
why is the ILX better? Answer: Less silvery plastic inside?
@ Jeff - I still believe they should have put the classic Honda front wishbone suspension in the ILX. Honda's struts never seem to have the same composure when the pavement moves away from ideal surfacing, I don't care what their marketing propaganda says.
|
I completely agree and I also think this is why the ILX doesn't quite match the "polish" levels of the TSX. But with that said, Honda made a HUGE step in improving the operation and feel of their macpherson strut setup between the 8th and 9th generation Civic.
Also, to the question posed in the title of the original post, I don't think anybody claimed the ILX was a better car than the TSX. |
I'll concede that the G9 Civic ride is improved, but at the expense of turn-in handling. This point however exemplifies the two things that could have distinguished the ILX - and extinguished criticism of Civic similarity/lack of Acuraness - the lack of a DWB front suspension in all trims and the loss of the LSD for the 2.4. That polish is why I've argued that all Acura's (large or small) should have DWB's as a signature feature. What Acura missed was, they could have easily added these... the DWB adding a small amount to the cost of assembly. And the LSD + DWB would have more significantly separated the ILX 2.4 from its Civic Si cousin. Defenders will say the expense is prohibitive... but its a penny-wise/pound foolish argument. Acura will already see significant savings of scale by using the high-volume modified Civic platform, as well as moving to US assembly. But because these two things DIDN'T happen, they dont have a TSX replacer w/ slightly lower start price (like a modern G1) and are relegated to KEEP the TSX - even for now. That's the pound foolishness.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
I don't think they are trying to use the ILX to replace the TSX....
Anyways, if the ILX has DWB, or LSD, people will still complain, it's just that they might complain less. If the ILX has DWB and LSD, people will simply ignore these positives and continue focusing on the negatives. They will be like, DWB? So what, old Civics that are now $5k have DWB. LSD? That's nice, but I get that in a $22k Civic Si too.
I'm not too sure about how much the added cost would be with DWB. I know that some Mustang owners have tried converting their cars from strut to DWB, and the cost of the kit is around $5000. Obviously making the change from factory will be cheaper. But that will also require more engineering work as space will be an issue and tuning will be very important. If the chassis is already designed for struts, then converting the same chassis to DWB will probably be more challenging than designing a chassis with DWB in mind. I'd imagine a lot of things have to be shuffled around in order to fit DWB in the ILX. After all of these, is it worthwhile to still do the DWB conversion? Will the benefit be worth the money and consequences?
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
Jeff wrote:
The ILX's actual handling isn't that far off from the 1st gen TSX - thanks to its light weight it has a pleasing tossability to it. It just seems to lack some of the polish of the TSX in terms of ride and dealing with challenging road surfaces, if only by a very small margin. |
Interesting. I'll have to test drive the 2.4L ILX to see how it compares to the 7G Accord.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
I don't think they are trying to use the ILX to replace the TSX....
Anyways, if the ILX has DWB, or LSD, people will still complain, it's just that they might complain less. If the ILX has DWB and LSD, people will simply ignore these positives and continue focusing on the negatives. They will be like, DWB? So what, old Civics that are now $5k have DWB. LSD? That's nice, but I get that in a $22k Civic Si too.
I'm not too sure about how much the added cost would be with DWB. I know that some Mustang owners have tried converting their cars from strut to DWB, and the cost of the kit is around $5000. Obviously making the change from factory will be cheaper. But that will also require more engineering work as space will be an issue and tuning will be very important. If the chassis is already designed for struts, then converting the same chassis to DWB will probably be more challenging than designing a chassis with DWB in mind. I'd imagine a lot of things have to be shuffled around in order to fit DWB in the ILX. After all of these, is it worthwhile to still do the DWB conversion? Will the benefit be worth the money and consequences?
|
So if they aren't replacing the TSX with the ILX it throws the whole value proposition that Acura used to have out the window. When the 3G TL came out it was priced below the 3 series but provided a larger size, similiar performance, and similiar features for a discounted price.
How does the ILX provide more value than its competitors? Is Acura throwing out the whole value proposition
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
I don't think they are trying to use the ILX to replace the TSX....
Anyways, if the ILX has DWB, or LSD, people will still complain, it's just that they might complain less. If the ILX has DWB and LSD, people will simply ignore these positives and continue focusing on the negatives. They will be like, DWB? So what, old Civics that are now $5k have DWB. LSD? That's nice, but I get that in a $22k Civic Si too.
I'm not too sure about how much the added cost would be with DWB. I know that some Mustang owners have tried converting their cars from strut to DWB, and the cost of the kit is around $5000. Obviously making the change from factory will be cheaper. But that will also require more engineering work as space will be an issue and tuning will be very important. If the chassis is already designed for struts, then converting the same chassis to DWB will probably be more challenging than designing a chassis with DWB in mind. I'd imagine a lot of things have to be shuffled around in order to fit DWB in the ILX. After all of these, is it worthwhile to still do the DWB conversion? Will the benefit be worth the money and consequences?
|
So if they aren't replacing the TSX with the ILX it throws the whole value proposition that Acura used to have out the window. When the 3G TL came out it was priced below the 3 series but provided a larger size, similiar performance, and similiar features for a discounted price.
How does the ILX provide more value than its competitors? Is Acura throwing out the whole value proposition
|
They are trying to get away from this value-luxury thing. We will find out if they will be successful in doing so years later. It takes a while to rebuild the Acura brand as it's been about value for a long time. I think the main competitors are verano, A3, 1 series, CT200h, etc - entry level cars from premium (or trying to be premium) brands.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Neal wrote:
I love it when a contributor to the genesis of a new vehicle is a declining bar chart ... Still, I hope it does well for them enough to justify keeping a foot in the compact premium door and offer a screamer version in this or some future iteration.
|
It's a sign of the times.
|
integrator
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
I don't think they are trying to use the ILX to replace the TSX....
Anyways, if the ILX has DWB, or LSD, people will still complain, it's just that they might complain less. If the ILX has DWB and LSD, people will simply ignore these positives and continue focusing on the negatives. They will be like, DWB? So what, old Civics that are now $5k have DWB. LSD? That's nice, but I get that in a $22k Civic Si too.
I'm not too sure about how much the added cost would be with DWB. I know that some Mustang owners have tried converting their cars from strut to DWB, and the cost of the kit is around $5000. Obviously making the change from factory will be cheaper. But that will also require more engineering work as space will be an issue and tuning will be very important. If the chassis is already designed for struts, then converting the same chassis to DWB will probably be more challenging than designing a chassis with DWB in mind. I'd imagine a lot of things have to be shuffled around in order to fit DWB in the ILX. After all of these, is it worthwhile to still do the DWB conversion? Will the benefit be worth the money and consequences?
|
Honda has the DWB parts in their parts bins. So its not engineering for a very tiny number of vehicles and then retrofitting - like that Mustang. My guess would be not over $300 difference/vehicle to replace the Mac struts including factory installation. All Honda systems include flexible platforms and flexible manufacturing... so the addition of attachment points on the body is not difficult - as evidenced in Fit EV's where they torsion bars were replaced with rear multi links. All process programming is discreetly packaged, so its plug n play for the computerized welding line....and its already been coded.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
integrator wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
I don't think they are trying to use the ILX to replace the TSX....
Anyways, if the ILX has DWB, or LSD, people will still complain, it's just that they might complain less. If the ILX has DWB and LSD, people will simply ignore these positives and continue focusing on the negatives. They will be like, DWB? So what, old Civics that are now $5k have DWB. LSD? That's nice, but I get that in a $22k Civic Si too.
I'm not too sure about how much the added cost would be with DWB. I know that some Mustang owners have tried converting their cars from strut to DWB, and the cost of the kit is around $5000. Obviously making the change from factory will be cheaper. But that will also require more engineering work as space will be an issue and tuning will be very important. If the chassis is already designed for struts, then converting the same chassis to DWB will probably be more challenging than designing a chassis with DWB in mind. I'd imagine a lot of things have to be shuffled around in order to fit DWB in the ILX. After all of these, is it worthwhile to still do the DWB conversion? Will the benefit be worth the money and consequences?
|
Honda has the DWB parts in their parts bins. So its not engineering for a very tiny number of vehicles and then retrofitting - like that Mustang. My guess would be not over $300 difference/vehicle to replace the Mac struts including factory installation. All Honda systems include flexible platforms and flexible manufacturing... so the addition of attachment points on the body is not difficult - as evidenced in Fit EV's where they torsion bars were replaced with rear multi links. All process programming is discreetly packaged, so its plug n play for the computerized welding line....and its already been coded.
|
it's not just "attachment points". Consider that all of the forces on the road, all of the weight of the vehicle has to intersect at those suspension pickup points. While it's true that the upper wishbone will not carry the same loads that the bottom wishbone will, it's still a significant undertaking, especially in the front of the chassis where there may not even be enough room to fit the upper wishbone in the first place (particularly on the Civic platform).
Toyota also had the option of rear DBW or torsion beam in the Matrix. But you take one look at that setup and you can tell it's severely compromised (sort of like the EP3 Civic's rear suspension). There's likely more freedom to put a trailing arm multilink in the rear but it's not cut and dry.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
ya...it's just as easy as plug n play.
I guess Honda COULD have engineered the civic chassis so that it would be more flexible with suspension types. But if it wasn't designed to be flexible at first, then it will be more work and money. You don't want a compromised DBW design. DBW requires careful tuning, otherwise you are just wasting time, effort, and money as a poorly tuned DBW is worse than strut.
|
integrator
|
|
|
My 'plug-n-play' comment was intended to reference the welding process flow and programming for its sequences, since the system was converted to flexible manufacturing in the welding and unibody mfg suite. Platforms are also flexible, hence their ability to be utilized in more than one form.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
ya...it's just as easy as plug n play.
I guess Honda COULD have engineered the civic chassis so that it would be more flexible with suspension types. But if it wasn't designed to be flexible at first, then it will be more work and money. You don't want a compromised DBW design. DBW requires careful tuning, otherwise you are just wasting time, effort, and money as a poorly tuned DBW is worse than strut.
|
I'd like to see you fit an upper control link under the front fender
|
Hondarulez
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
ya...it's just as easy as plug n play.
I guess Honda COULD have engineered the civic chassis so that it would be more flexible with suspension types. But if it wasn't designed to be flexible at first, then it will be more work and money. You don't want a compromised DBW design. DBW requires careful tuning, otherwise you are just wasting time, effort, and money as a poorly tuned DBW is worse than strut.
|
I'd like to see you fit an upper control link under the front fender
|
lol typo...I meant to say, "it's not as easy as plug & play"...........fail...hahaha
|
DrWhiner
|
|
Honda has the DWB parts in their parts bins.
|
Which DWB would fit?
Those from EJ Civic? or TSX?
|
dootndo2
|
|
This car is NOT a replacement for the TSX. It is the new entry level model. The TSX was the EURO Accord. The EURO Accord specific model is being discontinued in lieu of the NA Accord going global.
If they had called this TSX, then Europe would have thought that they were getting it as Accord. Which they are not. Also, NA would have cried out if this car was badged TSX.
The 1st Gen TSX was probably one of my favorite designs of current Acuras. The 2nd Gen looks too bloated and not clean. To many creases and crumples.
Just saying.
dootndo2
|
ClementZ
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
So what does it bring to the table that the TSX doesn't? I get the lower sticker price but that is it? As DCR quoted in another thread how does this vehicle replace the RSX in Acura's lineup, if that is the purpose?
Why not just bring back the Gen 1 TSX and be done with it?
I wonder if they talked about strategy at the event and how this fits in and or what gap it fills?
|
It isn't.
The point, is that the TSX is too close in size to the TL, and too expensive to be considered "entry-level."
I'd rather the TSX shrink, and people make it cheaper than have it axed altogether. The TSX was my favorite Acura, and I will miss it.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
