Re: ILX - any comments?

Page 1 of 2  


So specifically what about the European Accord-based TSX (smaller than American Accord) was somehow lacking compared to the ILX, which is just a Civic with leather seats and better audio and a 4 year warranty sold by a dealership with higher overhead and a *more* expensive service department?
SOMEBODY has to pay for the Acura dealer goodies that the Honda dealer doesn't have, and that's the sucker who buys the car.
And the ILX is so transparently nothing more Honda's Cimarron:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Cimarron
Cadillac failed horribly when they gave this treatment to GM's entry level economy car (Chevy Citation), and now Honda goes down the same path?
Honda's management has SERIOUSLY put their heads in the sand. You could probably ask them directly about why they think this is any different than the Cimarron situation, and they'd specifically deny having any knowledge of the Cimarron--which we all know is pure bullshit. Honda thinks THEY can do something that Cadillac couldn't do, because Honda thinks they're better. Honda thinks they can fool the buyers like this, and that the buyers are such idiots they'll respond in droves.
Civic Si w/nav and 18" alloys (factory leather not available), $27K MSRP. ILX 6 speed manual (nee Civic Si) with factory included leather plus a few goodies, $31K MSRP.
Or Civic Si w/nav and 18" alloys and aftermarket leather for less than $31K MSRP.
I'm deadly serious: what about a TSX is inferior to the ILX? And why pay a few thou more for the Acura badge when buying a Civic Si (for example)?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nastydesigns.com says...

I haven't driven the new Civic Si yet, but based on what I've read about the engine I'm wondering why they even bothered to call it an Si. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_Si#2012 ):
"The 9th generation Civic Si comes in a Coupe and a Sedan. The most notable difference from the previous generation is the engine upgrade. The Civic Si now features a K24Z7, 11.0:1 Compression, 2.4L 201 hp engine (a higher compression version of the one found in the Honda CR-V) capable of producing 170 lb·ft (230 N·m) of torque. The peak torque can be achieved at a much lower rpm as well, 4400 rpm vs the previous 6000 rpm. Due to the increased stroke implimented to increase midrange torque, the redline has been reduced to 7000 rpm, with a fuel cut at 7200 rpm."
So Honda essentially took the most distinguishing feature of an Si, a high-revving engine with its power output concentrated at the top end, and drastically changed its character with a longer stroke, trading revs for torque. And you get to pay almost $30K for the privilege of owning one. No thanks.
Dave
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:30:10 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"

Well, only that it *was* just a smaller Accord and not noticeably sportier or much of anything-ier and did carry a couple of grand for the badge.

Chevy Cavalier, but yeah.

Wull yeah, but that's what they do with Acura these days, sell the TL as a barely discernible difference from the Accord.
So my question is, anything new or better about this one?
I'm sensing that you think not.

Cuz the base ILX is only about $26k, and comes with a little more gingerbread and warranty and whatnot. And maybe I'm even willing to pay about $59 for the badge.
Well, I went and sat in one a couple of hours ago on the showroom floor, battery disconnected so I couldn't even adjust the seats, but right off the view forward seems awfully narrow vertically compared to my 2010 Accord. Are all the Civics that constrained? Ugh.
I like the feature list. They are trying to keep the price down. BUT they do seem to have forgotten there has to be a car under all those optimized gingerbread options.
There was a white TSX wagon sitting next to it on the showroom floor, roof rack with surfboards to set the mood. Y'know what, I noticed a TSX wagon on the road the other day, and that's a nice looking car. I have no particular need for a wagon and don't surf, but it still seemed to have more panache than the base TSX.
I just keep falling back to the midline Accords as the best deal in the line, and it just seems so disappointing, maybe I need to go try a Beamer or something, ... but the Accords are such a screaming value, going anywhere else costs at least modest bucks.
The ILX engine choices - a 2.0 with 150hp, a bit slow on the road these days, or the 2.4 out of the Accord, very strokey and boring. Can't they let the 2.0 rev like the S2000 and at least pretend to deliver 200hp? Or Cthulhu forbid put a turbo on it? Or even the electric assist but tuned for performance rather than just economy? Maybe next year, but my lease is coming up now. Anyway maybe it doesn't matter, Acura's idea of "sporty" has always been to lower the suspension half an inch and the roofline two inches, when the market has been screaming for *taller* cars for years, sporty or not. I miss my 1999 CL, curious boattail styling with almost a bubble cabin but it all *worked*, at least for me. If Acura put that styling onto the Civic platform, with some zippier engine, that would be the ticket for me. But at least I want the paddle shifters (which the ILX has), cuz the Accord's non-responsiveness is driving me nutz. Seems the only Honda offering the shifters is the V6 coupe. Hey, I don't suppose those can be added by the dealer to an i4 sedan? Hmm.
J.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then go also look at the new Camry and the new Altima, and evaluate those fresh designs and their values against the current Accord.
Car and Driver absolutely loved the new Camry (um, maybe they focused on the sport model, I forget) and the new Altima looks like a killer deal.
(Beemers are the motorcycles; the cars are Bimmers.)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Altima is nice if you can get over the CV tranny.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in message wrote:

Then go also look at the new Camry and the new Altima, and evaluate those fresh designs and their values against the current Accord.
Car and Driver absolutely loved the new Camry (um, maybe they focused on the sport model, I forget) and the new Altima looks like a killer deal.
(Beemers are the motorcycles; the cars are Bimmers.)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Scott W" wrote

What don't *you* like about a CV transmission?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Everything.
"Howard Lester" wrote in message
"Scott W" wrote

What don't *you* like about a CV transmission?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Specifically, we mean.
It's an automatic transmission. What don't you like about a CVT vs. a traditional geared automatic transmission?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote

To follow on, the reason I ask is because the new (2013 - ) Accords' automatics will be CVT, and I'm considering buying one next year or the following.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/31/2012 08:16 AM, Howard Lester wrote:

i'll bet you it's got programmed "shift points" because of the bleating of the "journalists" mentioned earlier. imo, this is an abomination for a cvt - it wears the cones quicker. the whole point of cvt is that it's "continuously variable" and thus avoids localization like that. and doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater of improved performance/better economy at the same time.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:16:02 -0400, "Howard Lester"

The Honda auto trans have been driving me crazy for ten years, they all seem to bog when you press the accelerator hard, and then either the trannie or the computer or both finally catch and you get a downshift and the engine jumps 2500 revs.
Maybe they'll get it right with the CVT.
I presume they've already been shipping them in Japan or elsewhere for some years?
J.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/01/2012 10:37 PM, JRStern wrote:

indeed, in other global markets, they've been popular for a couple of decades. even on frod and g.m vehicles sold overseas.
we're behind the curve. because the oilco's don't want to see the national fuel consumption drop? [rhetorical]
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/30/2012 6:51 PM, Scott W wrote:

He's probably just echoing the automotive journalists that almost all hate CVTs. The like the jerkier acceleration you get with transmissions that shift actual gears. It feels to them that they get to speed faster even though they don't. With a CVT when you step in the gas you get a more or less steady acceleration rate. With gear shifting you get alternating periods of high and low (or zero) acceleration for an average that is about the same or a little less than the CVT. However, the journalist remembers the feel of being pushed back harder into the seat during the higher parts of the cycle and so is more impressed.
There is the other effect that since you don't need quite as high acceleration periods, and the engine can stay closer to its best performance speed, CVT equiped cars can usually be built with lower horsepower (more fuel effiecient) engines. Journalists are always very impressed with higher horsepower numbers, even if they result in higher fuel costs and no better useful performance.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/31/2012 09:33 AM, Alan Bowler wrote:

very well put.

unfortunately, many manufacturers now build in a programmed "simulation" of the jerkier fixed ratio shift - somewhat defeating the whole point of cvt.

which is pure ignorance. if you put a pure cvt up against the same vehicle with conventional auto, or even stick, it'll usually beat them hands down because of always optimum ratio like you say.

well, i'm not. i drove a conventional cvt for a year back in the day, and once you got used to the complete non-correlation of engine revs with road speed, it was a fantastic system. fast, smooth, reliable, economical. and if you need to rebuild, they're not as complicated as conventional autos. honda cvt's have been lasting 300k [initial clutch problems aside] and there aren't many conventional modern autos do that.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/31/2012 8:31 PM, jim beam wrote:

Maybe my Accord's conventional A/T doesn't know about that rule because it's been running fine past 300K miles. Oh well, it must be one of those "not many."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/31/2012 09:39 PM, cameo wrote:

what year/model? some accord transmissions have been terrible these later years.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/2/2012 7:04 AM, jim beam wrote:

'94 LX.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Did you know the Altima CVT is available with paddle shifters? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? The buyers want the true advantage of the CVT but don't want to give up the behavior of a traditional auto. Personally, I want my car to behave like the dozens I have owned prior & prefer to feel the shift points. Therefore I will avoid a CVT.
"jim beam" wrote in message
On 07/31/2012 09:33 AM, Alan Bowler wrote:

very well put.

unfortunately, many manufacturers now build in a programmed "simulation" of the jerkier fixed ratio shift - somewhat defeating the whole point of cvt.

which is pure ignorance. if you put a pure cvt up against the same vehicle with conventional auto, or even stick, it'll usually beat them hands down because of always optimum ratio like you say.

well, i'm not. i drove a conventional cvt for a year back in the day, and once you got used to the complete non-correlation of engine revs with road speed, it was a fantastic system. fast, smooth, reliable, economical. and if you need to rebuild, they're not as complicated as conventional autos. honda cvt's have been lasting 300k [initial clutch problems aside] and there aren't many conventional modern autos do that.
--
fact check required


Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wow...after all the time engineers have spent smoothing out the shift points, almost to the point of invisibility.
I'm curious what shift-point-feel does for you, given that you're using an automatic transmission. Why not just get a manual transmission?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/1/2012 7:18 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

It must give them the kind of satisfaction Harley bike owners get out of that macho exhaust sound. Neither is functional, but gives the owners some kind of reassuring bliss. I'm just saying ...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.