|
|
|
|
 |
aznxthuggie
 |
|
2011 Acura TSX Sport Wagon vs. Honda Crosstour
"Having had the Honda Accord Crosstour and the Acura TSX Sport Wagon in our fleet back to back, one can't help but notice they are pretty similar inside the cabin. Not surprising since the TSX is based off the European Accord. But there needs to be some distinction between the Acura and Honda brands.
Our Crosstour was spiffed up inside almost like an Acura and cost $2,000 more than our TSX wagon. The TSX's interior isn't quite up to what I would call entry-level luxury. Both cars are nice. But they basically have the same set-up with the nav/audio system. The seats are almost similar but the TSX ekes out a bit more comfort than the Crosstour.
The TSX wagon should be more luxurious and special to claim the Acura name. And the Crosstour should be a little less so to appeal to frugal Honda buyers.
The Acura needs a stronger brand message if it wants to be considered luxury; it definitely needs to stand apart from Honda.
And while we are comparing, why does the Crosstour get a V6 and the TSX wagon gets an I4?"
|
dootndo2
 |
|
aznxthuggie wrote:
2011 Acura TSX Sport Wagon vs. Honda Crosstour
"Having had the Honda Accord Crosstour and the Acura TSX Sport Wagon in our fleet back to back, one can't help but notice they are pretty similar inside the cabin. Not surprising since the TSX is based off the European Accord. But there needs to be some distinction between the Acura and Honda brands.
Our Crosstour was spiffed up inside almost like an Acura and cost $2,000 more than our TSX wagon. The TSX's interior isn't quite up to what I would call entry-level luxury. Both cars are nice. But they basically have the same set-up with the nav/audio system. The seats are almost similar but the TSX ekes out a bit more comfort than the Crosstour.
The TSX wagon should be more luxurious and special to claim the Acura name. And the Crosstour should be a little less so to appeal to frugal Honda buyers.
The Acura needs a stronger brand message if it wants to be considered luxury; it definitely needs to stand apart from Honda.
And while we are comparing, why does the Crosstour get a V6 and the TSX wagon gets an I4?"
|
Suprised to see the article was as long as what you posted. I was hoping for more insight in the article. Hmmm...
|
aznxthuggie
 |
|
|
sry :x
|
CanTex
 |
|
Well, as someone with both a Crosstour and a TSX, I take issue with a couple of things.
The seats in the CT are bigger than the TSX, and seem to be more comfortable on long runs. (11 hours per day with minimal driver changes in the CT and we still feel fresh.) The side bolster is bigger on the TSX and of course, seat height is lower than the CT. The TSX is nimble (the grippier seats accommodate that), and the CT, while an excellent handler for it's size, feels large and has to be driven accordingly. The weight of the CT has to be respected when trying to "fling it around".
Yes, the big expanse of hard plastic on both cars says "rental car". The interior of the CT seems to be spread out "just because", no reason. Same controls in the TSX, smaller real estate - works for me. And a more luxo interior? Well, just drive the car and stop looking at the nuances of levels of luxury. Sheesh. It's not an RL.
And a 4 in the CT? With all that weight? We'll see how well that does when they add the 4. Sure, a V6 in the TSX wagon would be nice, but that would upset the handling and isn't all that necessary IMHO. 6-speed manual is needed, though.
Oh, and those clunky door handles in the CT - not good.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
|  |
|