|
|
|
|
 |
owequitit
 |
|
siegen wrote:
The ILX has the same drivetrain as the Si, weighs more, and is more luxury-focused. Expecting it to match the Si in performance and handling is unreasonable. The ILX is not a GSR/RSX-S replacement in my eyes.
I love the way the Si sedan exterior looks, but I would take an ILX over it any day of the week. Luxury and comfort are more important to me, but I still strongly prefer 6MT.
|
Not really. Traditionally, for $7K it is not unreasonable to expect an uptick in HP/Torque and suspension technology to outperform a much cheaper car. Especially considering that the ILX sedan is not THAT much heavier than an Si sedan, while being similar sized.
Mind you, I am not that disappointed that it is slightly slower than the Si, as much as I am that the chassis doesn't offer more grip and less understeer. The LSD, stickier tires and all of the other things Shawn mentioned would go a long way toward making the ILX a much sweeter handling car, and likely better than the Si. Considering the nearly 50% premium over the Si, that doesn't seem unreasonable.
|
nightflow
|
|
After reading this:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/09/2012-buick-verano-review/
I'm not sure if the American market was ever the main target. We know they did not target the former Integra market. I never knew the top selling car in the Chinese market was a version of the Buick Verano.
"The top-selling car in the world's largest auto market last year was the Buick Excelle, a C-segment sedan that just so happens also to be a version of the 2012 Buick Verano that's now on sale here in the United States."
"March sales came in at a modest 2,497 units (the Excelle family scored 23,179 April sales in China), making the Verano the least-purchased Buick for that month, while April's 2,989 units were just enough to beat the Regal in Buick's sales portfolio."
|
atomiclightbulb
|
|
VTEC_Inside wrote:
The deletion of the LSD is the biggest WTF??? for me. As you say, everything else is simple.
It really sounds like the car has a personality disorder. The Si engine (boring as the new K24 may be) and 6spd say performance, then they drop the LSD and replace its suspension with pillows (exaggeration). |
My personal feeling is that it's the Si that has the personality disorder, and not the ILX. Jon Ikeda specifically said that the ILX "is no boy racer". I'm fairly certain that Acura intends it to be a nice commuter car that is fun to drive for the mainstream consumer, but not "sporty" in the performance enthusiast sense. The K24+6MT is perfect for this application: flat, fat torque curve for a naturally aspirated engine, mostly in the low to mid-RPM range. I would like to see a limited-slip differential though.
The Si is where things get mixed up. It's supposed to have the character of a sports car, but it has the engine and suspension setup of a touring car. It was either Motor Trend or C&D that commented on how great the 9G Si was for long trips because the ride and engine were so civilized!
Acura's biggest mistake IMO was not launching the ILX with Earth Dreams engines. A higher level of performance and efficiency would have made the price more palatable, and I think the media reception would have been extremely favorable rather than just tepid to good.
|
notyper
|
|
Waldo wrote:
The ILX if for the younger urban professional who wants to appear and act all grown up. Nice car, better than entry level, looks a little upscale (but not too much). The statement it makes is that the owner is smart, sensible, good taste, but not extravagant. The boss will admire your good sense.
The ILX is not a fanboi car. Acura stated that they were going in the direction of "Smart Luxury". The ILX seems to fit that description. Most buyers actually don't really care about nitpicking performance statistics.
If you want more performance or cornering power for your $30K buy something else. Honda did not build this car for you. They built it for the sorority girls and frat boys about four years after they graduate, and settle down to a good career!
|
Point taken Waldo, but what person in this owner class you delineate above is going to be interested in a 6MT performance model, especially one that does not offer the tech upgrades available in the lesser powered models? If they had offered a 5AT with Navi/Tech as an option, your point would be valid. But a 6MT 2.4 model serves only one purpose - to satisfy the fan base and create a performance aura. For that purpose, the ILX falls short.
Let me use another example from my personal life - I drive a G37S 6MT sedan. It's the only G37 sedan offered with a manual transmission. As such, it is actually a bit slower in a straight line than the 7AT models, especially the lighter entry models. But I do get the control and involvement afforded by a manual. I also get an LSD standard, as well as uprated suspension, wheels/tires, much bigger brakes and some other small features along with the full options list as standard. The G37S 6MT is also the most expensive model in the G-sedan lineup (except for the new IPL sedan if they offer it). You can order the sport package on the automatic cars as an option on the top of the line automatics.
What Infiniti did here was brilliant, if completely obvious, IMO. They recognized that the vast majority of people buying the G, especially the sedan, were going to go for the automatic. They also realized that having a manual transmission option in this class was important for several reasons. First, it makes the car look good to magazine testers. Yes, sounds silly, but if magazine testers like your car (and they're all self-proclaimed enthusiasts who want to "save the manuals"), it's good for business. Second, it allows you to attract the enthusiast intenders. People who tend to influence many other buyers and help push your brand (for free) if they like your cars. So, they put a premium on the manual. It totally makes sense. Lower volumes, only people who really want it are going to be interested anyways, and they'll pay the premium.
Now tell me, why couldn't Honda do that? Why not offer the ILX with uprated brakes, lighter wheels, uprated shocks/springs/swaybars? Maybe a different exhaust too, or a slight body trim change. And option it up - standard. If you can't afford that, buy the Civic. Sell it for $33k. I don't think that would change their 2.4 sales one bit and it would do wonders for brand image.
SC
SC
|
sadlerau
|
|
notyper wrote:
Now tell me, why couldn't Honda do that? Why not offer the ILX with uprated brakes, lighter wheels, uprated shocks/springs/swaybars? Maybe a different exhaust too, or a slight body trim change. And option it up - standard. If you can't afford that, buy the Civic. Sell it for $33k. I don't think that would change their 2.4 sales one bit and it would do wonders for brand image.
SC
|
Why? Because Honda is SO hopeless in marketing, as you well know! :( What you say makes so much sense, yet Honda are oblivious to it all............
Is it the bean counters, the US head honchos, or the philosophy coming down from on high in Japan?? Knowing that would explain a lot - just not sure what? :) Maybe I'm too afraid to want to know the truth.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
nightflow wrote:
After reading this:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/09/2012-buick-verano-review/
I'm not sure if the American market was ever the main target. We know they did not target the former Integra market. I never knew the top selling car in the Chinese market was a version of the Buick Verano.
"The top-selling car in the world's largest auto market last year was the Buick Excelle, a C-segment sedan that just so happens also to be a version of the 2012 Buick Verano that's now on sale here in the United States."
"March sales came in at a modest 2,497 units (the Excelle family scored 23,179 April sales in China), making the Verano the least-purchased Buick for that month, while April's 2,989 units were just enough to beat the Regal in Buick's sales portfolio."
|
In 2011, Excelle GT/XT was selling at roughly half of the number of Excelle sold.
P.S. I alsohappens to believe the business case of ILX depends onChina. Acura badly needs a small displacement entrant in that market.
|
sa3eedi
|
|
sadlerau wrote:
notyper wrote:
Now tell me, why couldn't Honda do that? Why not offer the ILX with uprated brakes, lighter wheels, uprated shocks/springs/swaybars? Maybe a different exhaust too, or a slight body trim change. And option it up - standard. If you can't afford that, buy the Civic. Sell it for $33k. I don't think that would change their 2.4 sales one bit and it would do wonders for brand image.
SC
|
Why? Because Honda is SO hopeless in marketing, as you well know! :( What you say makes so much sense, yet Honda are oblivious to it all............
Is it the bean counters, the US head honchos, or the philosophy coming down from on high in Japan?? Knowing that would explain a lot - just not sure what? :) Maybe I'm too afraid to want to know the truth.
|
While I'm not making excuses for this car, isn't that what they basically did with the TL manual which is only available with sh-awd+tech.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
NSXman wrote:
If I recall (and I might be forgetting), I thought some Acura people a while ago told us this car would be like an IS250. Now...I fully understand the demerits that many have brought up about the IS cars (rear legroom for one). Having said that, from everything I have read about the comparisons of the IS350 to the IS250 it seems that the IS250 is actually leaning towards a drivers type car. It is way down on power to the IS350, but for a 2006 design it really isn't terrible power. I've seen Si type numbers from the car and descriptions of good balance and overall good performance numbers from a largely sport-luxury car that is known to lean more towards luxury.
I just find it disappointing that Acura can so badly miss their benchmark car and that the benchmark car is a 6 year old design.
My $0.02.
Further embarrassment might come if Toyota decides to use the chassis from the FRS in a Lexus model...which is a rumor. There is even talk of a RWD Toyota badged model. This Toyoda guy seems more likeable the more I see the direction Toyota is taking of late.
Funny the same article calls the ILX "underwhelming".
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-scion-fr-s-toyota-gt-86-convertible-rendered-news
|
From what I've seen, the IS250 is comparable to the TSX in acceleration. The TSX is a bit slower than the Civic Si. While the IS250 is a mid 15's car, the Si is more of a 14's car.
IS250 is more nimble and has less understeer than the IS350. From what I've read, the IS250 is described as having "composed & tight" handling, vs the IS350. From Jeff's review, the ILX seems to have good handling too. He said the car has responsive feel, and the steering is quite good.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
NSXman wrote:
If I recall (and I might be forgetting), I thought some Acura people a while ago told us this car would be like an IS250. Now...I fully understand the demerits that many have brought up about the IS cars (rear legroom for one). Having said that, from everything I have read about the comparisons of the IS350 to the IS250 it seems that the IS250 is actually leaning towards a drivers type car. It is way down on power to the IS350, but for a 2006 design it really isn't terrible power. I've seen Si type numbers from the car and descriptions of good balance and overall good performance numbers from a largely sport-luxury car that is known to lean more towards luxury.
I just find it disappointing that Acura can so badly miss their benchmark car and that the benchmark car is a 6 year old design.
My $0.02.
Further embarrassment might come if Toyota decides to use the chassis from the FRS in a Lexus model...which is a rumor. There is even talk of a RWD Toyota badged model. This Toyoda guy seems more likeable the more I see the direction Toyota is taking of late.
Funny the same article calls the ILX "underwhelming".
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-scion-fr-s-toyota-gt-86-convertible-rendered-news
|
Here are some numbers from Edmunds InsideLine of the IS250 F-Sport:
http://www.insideline.com/lexus/is-250/2008/2008-lexus-is-250-f-sport-follow-up-test.html
Track Test Results
0-45 mph (sec.) 4.9
0-60 mph (sec.) 7.5
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 7.2
0-75 mph (sec.) 11.5
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 15.7 @ 89.2
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 29
60-0 mph (ft.) 109
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 71.0
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.89
The F-sport has a lot of optional pricey parts. So the better comparison would be the regular IS250 6MT ($31k+):
http://www.insideline.com/lexus/is-250/2007/follow-up-test-2007-lexus-is-250.html
Track Test Results
0-45 mph (sec.) 4.9
0-60 mph (sec.) 7.5
0-75 mph (sec.) 11.4
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 15.8@89.5
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 27
60-0 mph (ft.) 113
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 70.4
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.84 g
Sound level @ idle (dB) 41
@ Full throttle (dB) 74.5
@ 70 mph cruise (dB) 65
The IS250 6MT, even without the F-sport package, still has some very nice and grippy Bridgestone Potenza RE050.
Regardless, judging from the numbers, I don't think the ILX is that bad....is it?
|
iutodd
|
|
notyper wrote:
Waldo wrote:
The ILX if for the younger urban professional who wants to appear and act all grown up. Nice car, better than entry level, looks a little upscale (but not too much). The statement it makes is that the owner is smart, sensible, good taste, but not extravagant. The boss will admire your good sense.
The ILX is not a fanboi car. Acura stated that they were going in the direction of "Smart Luxury". The ILX seems to fit that description. Most buyers actually don't really care about nitpicking performance statistics.
If you want more performance or cornering power for your $30K buy something else. Honda did not build this car for you. They built it for the sorority girls and frat boys about four years after they graduate, and settle down to a good career!
|
Point taken Waldo, but what person in this owner class you delineate above is going to be interested in a 6MT performance model, especially one that does not offer the tech upgrades available in the lesser powered models? If they had offered a 5AT with Navi/Tech as an option, your point would be valid. But a 6MT 2.4 model serves only one purpose - to satisfy the fan base and create a performance aura. For that purpose, the ILX falls short.
Let me use another example from my personal life - I drive a G37S 6MT sedan. It's the only G37 sedan offered with a manual transmission. As such, it is actually a bit slower in a straight line than the 7AT models, especially the lighter entry models. But I do get the control and involvement afforded by a manual. I also get an LSD standard, as well as uprated suspension, wheels/tires, much bigger brakes and some other small features along with the full options list as standard. The G37S 6MT is also the most expensive model in the G-sedan lineup (except for the new IPL sedan if they offer it). You can order the sport package on the automatic cars as an option on the top of the line automatics.
What Infiniti did here was brilliant, if completely obvious, IMO. They recognized that the vast majority of people buying the G, especially the sedan, were going to go for the automatic. They also realized that having a manual transmission option in this class was important for several reasons. First, it makes the car look good to magazine testers. Yes, sounds silly, but if magazine testers like your car (and they're all self-proclaimed enthusiasts who want to "save the manuals"), it's good for business. Second, it allows you to attract the enthusiast intenders. People who tend to influence many other buyers and help push your brand (for free) if they like your cars. So, they put a premium on the manual. It totally makes sense. Lower volumes, only people who really want it are going to be interested anyways, and they'll pay the premium.
Now tell me, why couldn't Honda do that? Why not offer the ILX with uprated brakes, lighter wheels, uprated shocks/springs/swaybars? Maybe a different exhaust too, or a slight body trim change. And option it up - standard. If you can't afford that, buy the Civic. Sell it for $33k. I don't think that would change their 2.4 sales one bit and it would do wonders for brand image.
SC
SC
|
I was thinking about it and I don't think it has anything to do with how much performance the car does or doesn't have - it's about making the best car possible. Honda should be putting the best tires and best brakes/suspension/etc. on every Acura and especially on the top trim/performance models.
|
NSXforever
|
|
IS should not be in the discussion, nor 3 series, etc. The ILX is a FWD car with 201hp tops with nowhere near the luxury, sport, power, technology or amenities. They are completely different cars. Even a base IS 250 is RWD and starts at a price where the ILX pretty much ends. Acura said somehow they are aiming for the A3 and CT with the ILX meanwhile the Buick Verano is clearly the main competitor.
I think they stated only 5% sold will be 2.4 models so out of the 40,000 they expect to sell, 2,000 are expected to be the 2.4. Its such small volume.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1205_sport_luxury_sedan_comparison/viewall.html
In that comparo the IS 250 F-sport is judged ahead of the V-6 TSX. What chance does a ILX have as the TSX is far superior.
None.
|
cksi1372
|
|
sadlerau wrote:
Why would you be disappointed? The ILX was always going to be more "luxury" orientated than an Si, so you would expect it to be a "bit" slower in speed and handling. Does it ride better than an Si, have less noise and great creature comforts? If not, then yes I think you would have a right to be disappointed.
They are just raw numbers, it will be interesting to see how the ride/handling equation pans out in comparison with an Si??
|
They forgot one "great creature comfort"...no Navi for the 2.4. Still trying to figure this one out. I think those looking at this specific model will more often than not end up with something else...perhaps a GTI.
The base and hybrid might do well with the girlies and or geezers. Ha.
|
Waldo
|
|
notyper wrote:
Point taken Waldo, but what person in this owner class you delineate above is going to be interested in a 6MT performance model, especially one that does not offer the tech upgrades available in the lesser powered models? . . .
|
I don't believe Acura really cares much about the 2.4 MT. They won't sell enough of them to matter. You correctly point out that it was probably built for the entertainment of magazine writers, poseurs that they are. Watch the dealer lots when they start to arrive. The plain vanilla AT will dominate the inventory. That's the market they are targeting.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
sa3eedi wrote:
sadlerau wrote:
notyper wrote:
Now tell me, why couldn't Honda do that? Why not offer the ILX with uprated brakes, lighter wheels, uprated shocks/springs/swaybars? Maybe a different exhaust too, or a slight body trim change. And option it up - standard. If you can't afford that, buy the Civic. Sell it for $33k. I don't think that would change their 2.4 sales one bit and it would do wonders for brand image.
SC
|
Why? Because Honda is SO hopeless in marketing, as you well know! :( What you say makes so much sense, yet Honda are oblivious to it all............
Is it the bean counters, the US head honchos, or the philosophy coming down from on high in Japan?? Knowing that would explain a lot - just not sure what? :) Maybe I'm too afraid to want to know the truth.
|
While I'm not making excuses for this car, isn't that what they basically did with the TL manual which is only available with sh-awd+tech.
|
Shhhhhh..... it's easy to criticize. Just let everbody have some fun.
|
Grace141
|
|
iutodd wrote:
I was thinking about it and I don't think it has anything to do with how much performance the car does or doesn't have - it's about making the best car possible. Honda should be putting the best tires and best brakes/suspension/etc. on every Acura and especially on the top trim/performance models.
|
My guess is Honda is convinced their ILX has the best tires, brakes, suspension, etc. available for that segment of the market. Complaints about the level of grip from the MXM4 tires may be valid but it's a great compromise of a tire for average customers to use everyday for thousands of miles. No complaints from me about the ones I ran to 45k miles on our RDX - they were quiet and dead smooth all the way to the wear bars. They are indeed expensive though.
|
CR-V9
|
|
I agree with notpyer. AHM should make those available as dealer options such as tires, uprated brake pads, lighter wheels and A-spec suspension. LSD would be a bit too much considering warranty issues as dealer options, though.
But I'm not sure if customers would understand. For example, if you remember the tire wear debacle with the NSX. Customer complained that performance tires on the NSX wears too quick, like ~10,000 miles or so which was not too bad for true perfoemance tires though. Maybe the current and former Honda customers who step up to Acura are the ones pulling Acura's legs? Acura = Honda+ therefore inexpensive and everything should last long time like regular Accords, Civics? I don't know I'm not an Acura customer.
|
notyper
|
|
No, if you make them dealer installed options then they aren't basically free. You'll force the customer to spend another $4000, whereas if they are factory installed (on every 2.4) the cost is just a few hundred $$$.
Again, you only do this on the 2.4 6MT model because you know that only people with an enthusiast bent are going to buy this one.
As for tires, the Pilot HX MXM4 simply suck. Their wet grip is sketchy, they squeal around corners, they don't do well in snow. This was a decent tire when it was launched - almost 10 years ago. But today it is pretty weak. What's sad is that the Primacy MXM4, which is about 2 years old now, is $20 cheaper/tire at Tire Rack and is generally a better tire all around (class leading). Or they could go with the Pilot A/S which is even cheaper and more performance oriented while remaining all season capable (although its a nearly 5 year old design).
To me, the final spec out on the ILX 2.4 just looks like they were more concerned with cost than anything else. Throw the oldest all-season tires on the market on it, spec out the features to the lowest level, and cut out any options that aren't immediately visible.
Just watch, they'll claim that sales of the ILX 2.4 are too low to justify making improvements or even continuing the model down the road.....
SC
|
VTEC_Inside
|
|
notyper wrote:
No, if you make them dealer installed options then they aren't basically free. You'll force the customer to spend another $4000, whereas if they are factory installed (on every 2.4) the cost is just a few hundred $$$.
Again, you only do this on the 2.4 6MT model because you know that only people with an enthusiast bent are going to buy this one.
As for tires, the Pilot HX MXM4 simply suck. Their wet grip is sketchy, they squeal around corners, they don't do well in snow. This was a decent tire when it was launched - almost 10 years ago. But today it is pretty weak. What's sad is that the Primacy MXM4, which is about 2 years old now, is $20 cheaper/tire at Tire Rack and is generally a better tire all around (class leading). Or they could go with the Pilot A/S which is even cheaper and more performance oriented while remaining all season capable (although its a nearly 5 year old design).
To me, the final spec out on the ILX 2.4 just looks like they were more concerned with cost than anything else. Throw the oldest all-season tires on the market on it, spec out the features to the lowest level, and cut out any options that aren't immediately visible.
Just watch, they'll claim that sales of the ILX 2.4 are too low to justify making improvements or even continuing the model down the road.....
SC
|
I think you are being too polite about the Pilot HX MXM4. Its a HORRIBLE tire as far as I'm concerned.
So so grip in the dry, and frightening in the rain.
If it were half the cost it would ALMOST be an ok tire with the exception of its horrible wet weather grip. Not to mention that it gets considerably worse as it wears down.
I replaced them with Yokohama Advan S4s on my RSX-S and the difference was insane. The Yokos were cheaper, ride smoother, and grip like no ones business.
What was left of my RSXs original tires a couple days before the Yokos went on: (I ran these about 2-3lbs below door sticker and they still wore like this. The only redeeming quality at this stage was that coupled with the Type R rear sway, the car would over-steer on dry asphalt.)
|
Karl O.
|
|
notyper wrote:
No, if you make them dealer installed options then they aren't basically free. You'll force the customer to spend another $4000, whereas if they are factory installed (on every 2.4) the cost is just a few hundred $$$.
Again, you only do this on the 2.4 6MT model because you know that only people with an enthusiast bent are going to buy this one.
As for tires, the Pilot HX MXM4 simply suck. Their wet grip is sketchy, they squeal around corners, they don't do well in snow. This was a decent tire when it was launched - almost 10 years ago. But today it is pretty weak. What's sad is that the Primacy MXM4, which is about 2 years old now, is $20 cheaper/tire at Tire Rack and is generally a better tire all around (class leading). Or they could go with the Pilot A/S which is even cheaper and more performance oriented while remaining all season capable (although its a nearly 5 year old design).
To me, the final spec out on the ILX 2.4 just looks like they were more concerned with cost than anything else. Throw the oldest all-season tires on the market on it, spec out the features to the lowest level, and cut out any options that aren't immediately visible.
Just watch, they'll claim that sales of the ILX 2.4 are too low to justify making improvements or even continuing the model down the road.....
SC
|
I think what you're saying is that while the ILX is probably a good car, it just feels like Acura left an awful lot on table on this one. And it really wouldn't cost much more to make the car outstanding, but Acura just hasn't done it. Stuff like the LSD, tire choice, brake pad choice, suspension tuning- choosing sportier settings would not really have cost any more, incrementally.
Jeff is right, most of these cars are going to be 2.0 slushboxes, but the Integra was the same way. Acura never really sold many GS-Rs compared to RS and LS.
I really like the way the car looks, and I think I would probably buy one as a commuter. Swap the tires and it will handle well enough and the 6MT of course will be fun to use. I don't know that I would fall in love with it out of the box but it would make a fun project car.
|
DCR
|
|
|
You are in a much better financial position than most if you plop down over $30k for a project car...especially one that requires some "mandatory" upgrades to even be a starting point.
|
CR-V9
|
|
... You'll force the customer to spend another $4000, whereas if they are factory installed (on every 2.4) the cost is just a few hundred $$$.
Again, you only do this on the 2.4 6MT model because you know that only people with an enthusiast bent are going to buy this one. ... |
You said that price it $33k or so. You could choose those dealer installed options for 30k ~ 34k. At least you have choices.
|
notyper
|
|
Karl O. wrote:
I think what you're saying is that while the ILX is probably a good car, it just feels like Acura left an awful lot on table on this one. And it really wouldn't cost much more to make the car outstanding, but Acura just hasn't done it. Stuff like the LSD, tire choice, brake pad choice, suspension tuning- choosing sportier settings would not really have cost any more, incrementally.
Jeff is right, most of these cars are going to be 2.0 slushboxes, but the Integra was the same way. Acura never really sold many GS-Rs compared to RS and LS.
I really like the way the car looks, and I think I would probably buy one as a commuter. Swap the tires and it will handle well enough and the 6MT of course will be fun to use. I don't know that I would fall in love with it out of the box but it would make a fun project car.
|
I think some of the fundamentals are there. It looks decent. The interior is good. Sounds like the steering is good too.
I also don't think that the ride/handling/tire package is a problem on the Hybrid or 2.0. And I while it isn't as fast as I'd like, I don't think the K24 is a problem either - less on the ILX at least than it is on the Civic Si.
Where Acura missed on this is twofold.
1.) The hybrid and base powertrains are too weak with too little fuel economy benefit in return. The hybrid is simply overmatched and only 150 hp from a 2 liter? This is simply Acura doing things on the cheap. 10-15 hp more from the 2.0 wouldn't have been too difficult, but it would have required actually putting in engineering time on the R20 instead of hot swapping it from other models.
2.) The options and suspension package on the 2.4. This is your halo model. Less than 5%. Pretty much going to be bought only by enthusiasts who are really looking for the extra performance. So why deprive them of the cool options? And why stick with crappy tires, brake pads and suspension calibrations? Amp it up. Create a true halo model. The A-spec packages have always been very impressive for how they manage the ride/handling balance while offering a major improvement in performance and feedback. The TSX A-spec suspension moves it right into the top 3 handling FWD Honda/Acura products of all time IMO. So the talent is there. Give us that from the factory. Don't force someone to spend thousands of dollars after the fact.
To me it's like someone was cooking this really nice meal. Bought a bunch of nice ingredients. In this case, uprated sheet metal, uprated interior, high tech dampers and a really solid chassis platform. Then they forgot to salt the 2.0 (a little more power) and completely forgot the onions, peppers and spices on the 2.4 (tires, brakes, suspension and LSD).
The 2.0 comes out a little bland, but people will still eat it. But the guy who would have ordered the 2.4 was looking for something spicy and he got oatmeal instead.
SC
|
CR-V9
|
|
VTEC_Inside wrote:
[ ... ]
I replaced them with Yokohama Advan S4s on my RSX-S and the difference was insane. The Yokos were cheaper, ride smoother, and grip like no ones business.
What was left of my RSXs original tires a couple days before the Yokos went on: (I ran these about 2-3lbs below door sticker and they still wore like this. The only redeeming quality at this stage was that coupled with the Type R rear sway, the car would over-steer on dry asphalt.)
|
Did you say you ran 2-3lbs below the door sticker? Did you track your RSX? I always thought they wear out outer rims with lower pressure. Wearing out in the middle meant pressure is too high, I thought.
|
Grace141
|
|
VTEC_Inside wrote:
I think you are being too polite about the Pilot HX MXM4. Its a HORRIBLE tire as far as I'm concerned.
So so grip in the dry, and frightening in the rain.
If it were half the cost it would ALMOST be an ok tire with the exception of its horrible wet weather grip. Not to mention that it gets considerably worse as it wears down.
I replaced them with Yokohama Advan S4s on my RSX-S and the difference was insane. The Yokos were cheaper, ride smoother, and grip like no ones business.
What was left of my RSXs original tires a couple days before the Yokos went on: (I ran these about 2-3lbs below door sticker and they still wore like this. The only redeeming quality at this stage was that coupled with the Type R rear sway, the car would over-steer on dry asphalt.)
|
First, the Tire Rack classifies the Advan S.4 as an Ultra High Performance All-Season tire whereas the Pilot HX MXM4 is a Grand Touring All-Season tire. No surprise there that grip would improve sharply.
Looking closer, I checked an '06 RSX-S and found the OEM size to be 215-45R17. The MXM4 in that size has a lower treadwear number than the Advan S.4. I've always believed that different sizes of a particular tire are simply different tires. Do you folks who are saying the MXM4 is a bad tire all have experience with it on the RSX or TL? Heck, maybe my experience was different due to SH-AWD but I doubt it. My guess is it's a combo of weight and tire patch.
For the RDX in the OEM 235-55R18 size there wasn't a Primacy available last fall. The highest Tire Rack-rated Grand Touring All-Season tire at that time was the Goodyear Assurance ComforTread Touring (I kid you not) in the comparable spec. I've had them on the RDX since last fall and found rain and snow grip to be similar to the MXM4 but noise to be slightly worse. And I don't care for how the Goodyears transmit road surface vibrations.
|
MasterOfDaDomain
|
|
I completely agree with Shawn. To offer the 2.4 6mt without proper chassis improvement over the standard model makes no sense at all.
Stiffer suspension, LSD and tires are no-brainer. It's not like Acura doesn't know how to do it.
If they want to keep the price low, offer the sporty model without some of the features in the premium package.
|
TonyEX
|
|
IMHO the new ILX 2.4 is not the old GSR... This time around AHM is keeping the Civic Si as the top dog.
That said, it completely escapes me why there is neither an AT or Tech Package available in the K24 ILX.
If the ILX is to be effective, they must offer a fully loaded base model and a sport upgraded Type S.
I don't know... I just think that AHM did not really think through the relationship between the Civic and ILX. There is a missing narrative there... a narrative that a few engineers and heavy foot could figure out in one day flat.
|
CR-V9
|
|
One of ILX reviews TSX69 kindly posted said that the reason was 95% of customers who bought manuals didn't up for Nav, I think. Don't quote me though.
(ps. I just like to tell you, Tony, that I've fixed my compter. One was a clip on the connector as DCR(?) said. The other problem was the hard drive.
I had re-installed the recover disks 3~4 times. Each time it lasted a month or so before it froze up again and again. Finally I was not able to even re-install the recover disks. It was just eternally copying files. I waited over night. I started it and went to bed, and it was still copying files next morning. Thing was I didn't get any messages or blue screen or anything.
So I changed the hard drive and re-installed the disks. I just would like to tell you and thank you for help.)
|
VTEC_Inside
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
VTEC_Inside wrote:
[ ... ]
I replaced them with Yokohama Advan S4s on my RSX-S and the difference was insane. The Yokos were cheaper, ride smoother, and grip like no ones business.
What was left of my RSXs original tires a couple days before the Yokos went on: (I ran these about 2-3lbs below door sticker and they still wore like this. The only redeeming quality at this stage was that coupled with the Type R rear sway, the car would over-steer on dry asphalt.)
|
Did you say you ran 2-3lbs below the door sticker? Did you track your RSX? I always thought they wear out outer rims with lower pressure. Wearing out in the middle meant pressure is too high, I thought.
|
I squeezed about 68,000kms out of them before they looked like that.
Never tracked the car. Just lowered the pressures a touch based on observing the "dirty" area of the tire.
Agreed, you would think that they would have shown a bit more wear on the outer edges by doing that but...
As it was, the middle was only ever so slightly worn more than the outer edges. Its deceiving because the outer tread block grooves dip into the sidewalls a bit.
|
cforez
|
|
Maybe the reason why the OEM MXM4s were so bad is likely the rubber compound that Honda specs for the OEM tires. I had OEM Pilot MXM4s on my 2006 Accord. When I had to replace them at 65k, I wanted to get the new Primacy MXV4s, but since the tire was backordered, the tire shop gave me a loaner set of aftermarket spec Pilot MXM4s for a couple of weeks. This loaner set was quieter and gripped better than the OEM tire as well as the Primacy MXV4s. If it weren't for the fact that the aftermarket MXM4s have half the tread wear rating of the MXV4s, I would have stuck with the loaner tires. The original MXM4s weren't too bad, I think when the 7th gen Accord had its MMC and went to 17" rims, I think they went with a better tire.
The same thing happened with the Energy MXV4s on my 2000 Accord, but the difference was even more pronounced. The OEM tires were pretty bad.
|
Karl O.
|
|
DCR wrote:
You are in a much better financial position than most if you plop down over $30k for a project car...especially one that requires some "mandatory" upgrades to even be a starting point.
|
I see your point. And in response, I would say, Honda also has the Civic Si for $6k less if that's what you want.
Part of the fun of cars like this is that you can tune them a little at a time. Change the tires and appreciate the improvement, a year later maybe swap out the brake pads and the springs- I'm not saying you should take the car to Vin Diesel and give him $10k to turbo it and paint it bright green, but you could have a little fun with the car if you want.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 [2] 3 |
| |
|
![[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}
