Review: 2010 Acura TSX V6

Michael Martineck
by Michael Martineck

Remember the ’86 Acura Legend Coupe, the definition of elegant muscle? Or how about the ’97 Integra Type R, the weekend racer you couldn’t break? These were Acuras that inspired passion, joy, and a special place burned into my long-term memory. Even though it’s been 24 and 12 years ago respectively since I drove these high points for Honda’s luxury brand, I remember them like it was yesterday. In contrast, I drove a TSX V6 a mere three days ago, and already my primary remaining impression of it is a longing for those Acuras of yesteryear. And my memory isn’t even that bad.

I’ve always liked Acuras. At least the idea of them. I don’t demand rear-wheel drive and V8s in my sport luxury cars. I appreciate the Honda work ethic, attention to detail and sense of assurance. The difficulty is, if you like them, you go to the dealership and wonder where they are. The TSX V6 is the perfect example. It’s a Honda Accord with a pretentious snout and three-times the buttons.

The interior is Steve Jobs personal Hell. Every necessary button comes with an average of four attendants. I stopped counting at five thousand.Things look very nice inside, in the current black and silver style, but nothing generates a ‘wow’. Nothing generates a ‘where’ or ‘what’ either, so I shouldn’t complain.

Ergonomically, everything is pretty much at or near where you’d guess it would be. Every switch and knob feels firm but pliable, like a good assistant or yoga trainer. Which is what luxury’s all about in the end.

Based on the European Honda Accord, the TSX exterior design is more crisp than its underlings. Cues like the hip crease are tense and sophisticated, but overall Acura’s design language has a limited vocabulary. There is not enough to give this car – the whole line, really – distinction. There is nothing terribly wrong with the TSX, it’s just not as attractive as, well, everything else in the class (the Lexus ES being the only possible exception.)

On that pretentious snout rests the Acura crest, a stylized caliper, signifying the company’s devotion to engineering. It is rightly placed over the hood. This is where the discipline shows. The V6 is new for 2010, offering the TSX’s first-ever step up from the four-cylinder. The 24-valve, single overhead cam with variable valve timing puts out 280 horses and 254 pound feet of torque. This is not insubstantial. The engine revs freely, effortlessly and on an easy to understand path. And there’s no shortage of grunt, despite the 3700 pounds.

The five-speed automatic transmission is equally attentive. As opposed to many competitors, this one is a worthy dance partner, never falling behind or stepping on the wrong cog. Downshifts were on time and correct, without the three-blind-mice effect, bumping around in search of the right gear. The automatic clipped to the four-cylinder actually achieves better gas mileage than the manual.

The V6 also comes with enhanced steering, which feels like they added a couple of clock weights to the standard electronic set up. The result is more satisfying than the over-juiced wheel in the base TSX. It is not better, just heavier. Heavier has a shorter learning curve which makes me wonder if I’d get used to the lighter settings, adapt my driving, and not care after a while.

One thing is certain: the brakes aren’t stopping potential buyers in their tracks. They are simply not as good as most of the competition. While not unsafe, they lack the precise feeling and sheer stopping power this drivetrain deserves.

The fact that the suspension is decent makes the inferior brakes even more disappointing. The car’s roll is minimal, keeping you fairly flat, without making your fillings fly out. The car is waggle free. Combined with the frictionless engine and alert tranny, the TSX is hardly short on fun.

But neither are the Audi A4, BMW 3, Mercedes C, Infinity G, Cadillac CTS, Hyundai Genesis, Volvo S80 . . . All of which have more personality in one department or another. The TSX is a conservative entry in a broad market segment. So while the car is not bad, it fails to stand out against a dozen direct competitors. And I’m probably forgetting some . . . Oh, right, the V6 Honda Accord, this car’s fraternal twin.

The suspension is assembled from the same components (albeit a tad softer.) The engine lacks a mere eight horsepower, though for that compromise your gas mileage climbs by two (city/highway average.) Though nearly identical in exterior measurements, the Accord offers six more cubic feet of cabin space. It might not be of the useful variety, but that’s not the point. It’s eight grand less (our tester stickered at $38,881) and, in many respects, it’s better.

The TSX’s luxury appointments are just that: appointments. The guts are too similar and style too tame. If you’re fond of Hondas and have more money than you used too, buy a V6 Accord, swap out the tires for a stickier set and donate the remaining six and a half Gs to your favorite charity. You’ll be better off, the world will be better off and maybe, in the long run, it’ll help make Acura better. Till then, thanks for the memories.

Michael Martineck
Michael Martineck

More by Michael Martineck

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 84 comments
  • V6 V6 on Jan 20, 2010

    .

  • ConejoZing ConejoZing on Jan 28, 2010

    "It was in the mid 90’s that Honda just went downhill on average (with Acura leading the charge)." "Although I’m not a fan of the Star Trek interior of the current Civic" Yes! Someone else noticed the subtle mid 90's change. It started really subtle... then eventually consumed the whole brand. Early 90's was just an awesome time, really. Honda at that time had very well made, simple, practical cars. Then everything got really haphazard and complicated in a stumbling move "upmarket." Which of course left them vulnerable to Hyundai / Kia. And you know what? People really like Star Trek. Whereas VW, BMW, Audi go for an artful, sophisticated (ok yeah Audi has been known to be over the top aggressive with their grilles) look Honda can and will GEEK their cars. Which is ironic that the GEEK squad drives VW and Chevrolet vans lol.

    • Accs Accs on Jan 28, 2010

      JEEZ, Its really unfair to yourself AND them to catagorize / write off the interior of a billion dollar car to being "Star Trek". The company spends a coupla hundred thousand dollars on the interior of the car, to minimize you actually having to look DOWN to see the speedo.. and people write it off for the weird interior. WTF! Actually, I think they did a pretty damn amazing job of having the the dash curve lining up with the curve of the hood.. right into the pass cabin with the speedo almost lining up with the lowest line of sight.. so you dont even have to look down. It's the little b.s things that piss me off. 1. Like they need to incorporate a nav cover / way to keep the unit from being stolen. 2. Work some more detail into the pass section of the dash / ip area 3. Fix the void of space where the plastic covered shifter lies. Its useless dead space, with no storage or usability. I just had this brainstorm.. The company also does / did a lot of racing... so the interiors could be going towards that direction -- keeping all functions around the wheel at ease of operation. In case I wasnt notified, Honda didnt move upmarket. They are still on the same playing field as the domestics.. Its Acura, that they are trying to get a step or so above Honda, while keeping the bones of Honda buried deeply -- as evident in a comparison of the MDX / Pilot, RDX / CRV. Its also been JUST recently, that EVERYONE is doing a corporate fascia for every vehicle. The Audi grilles are pretty amazing, a take off can be seen through Mitsu. While Audi interiors.. are pretty top notch -- exluding the MMI - nav unit b.s completely. Only thing Hyundai / Kia have is that warranty. The vehicles are a kind of a toss up. Not bad looking (style is always subjective.) But ya dont go there for cars ya want to "drive" or "reliability". PRICE is pretty much their only point for being.. and doing everything cheaper than the Japanese, (including labor.) It's only VERY recently, that Hyundai / Kia actually have something to crow about.. besides the blanket protection for job loss and other associated untouchable protections.. Their engines.. are going to be pretty amazing. Stuffing a 2ltr 4cycl with direct injection, into a car larger than CURRENT Accord with NO 6cycl available AND getting better fuel economy... THAT.. is amazing in itself. Yes the designs are coming around (they pilched the designer from Audi), but its the cars that have to sell themselves.. without value as their biggest point.

  • Lou_BC I've had my collision alert come on 2 times in 8 months. Once was when a pickup turned onto a side road with minimal notice. Another with a bus turning left and I was well clear in the outside lane but turn off was in a corner. I suspect the collision alert thought I was traveling in a straight line.I have the "emergency braking" part of the system turned off. I've had "lane keep assist" not recognize vehicles parked on the shoulder.That's the extent of my experience with "assists". I don't trust any of it.
  • SCE to AUX A lot has changed since I got my license in 1979, about 2 weeks after I turned 16 (on my second attempt). I would have benefited from formal driver training, and waiting another year to get my license. I was a road terror for several years - lots of accidents, near misses, speeding, showing off - the epitome of youthful indiscretion.
  • Lou_BC Jellybean F150 (1997-2004). People tend to prefer the more square body and blunt grill style.
  • SCE to AUX My first car was a 71 Pinto, 1.6 Kent engine, 4 spd. It was the original Base model with a trunk, #4332 ever built. I paid $125 for it in 1980, and had it a year. It remains the quietest idling engine I've ever had. 75HP, and I think the compression ratio was 8:1. It was riddled with rust, and I sold it to a classmate who took it to North Carolina.After a year with a 74 Fiat, I got a 76 Pinto, 2.3 engine, 4-spd. The engine was tractor rough, but I had the car 5 years with lots of rebuilding. It's the only car I parted with by driving into a junkyard.Finally, we got an 80 Bobcat for $1 from a friend in 1987. What a piece of junk. Besides the rust, it never ran right despite tons of work, fuel economy was terrible, the automatic killed the power. The hatch always leaked, and the vinyl seats were brutal in winter and summer.These cars were terrible by today's standards, but they never left me stranded. All were fitted with the poly blast shield, and I never worried about blowing up.The miserable Bobcat was traded for an 82 LTD, which was my last Ford when it was traded in 1996. Seeing how Ford is doing today, I won't be going back.
  • Jeff S I rented a PT Cruiser for a week and although I would not have bought one it was not as bad as I thought it would be. Pontiac Aztek was a good vehicle but ugly. Pinto for its time was not as good as the Japanese cars but it was not the worst that honor would go to the Vega. If one bought a Pinto new it was much better with a 4 speed manual with no air it didn't have the power for those. Add air and an automatic to a Pinto and you could beat it on a bicycle. The few small cars available today or in the recent past are so much better than the Pinto, Vega, and Gremlin. A Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, and the former Chevy Spark are light years ahead of those small cars of the 70s.
Next