Acura TSX owners, can you give me your impressions so far? - Page 2

ottoman · 03-02-04, 05:08

The link I provided does not simply reflect repair costs. It states that "A good bumper system should absorb the energy of these minor impacts and protect expensive body panels, headlamp systems and other components from damages, the Institute said. " And it doesnt take a link to know that information, should be common knowledge. So if the bumper does not absorb the energy of the impacts, guess what does. Thats right, the frame. If these minor tests affect the frame and cause damage imagine what an accident with more force can do.

I'm by no means an Acura-hater or anything, its just simple physics. If these light accident tests cause this much damage to bumper and not protect other components from damage the frame will be damaged. What else is there to absorb the damage if the bumper fails??? It makes perfect sense that if the frame is gonna be absorbing more damage than it should, then the passengers are gonna be absorbing more force than they should. Once again, not trying to demote the quality of Acura TSX. I just think this is an important thing to consider.

GoodnClean · 03-02-04, 06:42

I agree that safety is a very important consideration but I think the relationship of poor bumper safety automatically meaning poor crash test ratings is unfounded.

I just did some research and there are many cars in this class that have "Marginal" or "Poor" bumper ratings and excellent crash test ratings all around. There are also several with good bumpers and poor crash test performance. The bumper test is simply to test the bumper's resistance to damage, its not a safety test.

Cars with marginal or poor bumper performance and excellent crash test ratings in this class:

Mercedes C Class (bumper poor)
Lexus IS300 (bumper poor)
BMW 3 Series (bumper marginal)
Saab 9-5 (bumper poor)
Jaguar X Type (bumper poor)
Volvo S60 (bumper poor)

In fact, NO entry level luxury car had a good bumper rating, and most had poor! but all of them have excellent safety ratings.

Check it out http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/...ary_midlux.htm

The evidence supports only one conclusion, there is no correlation between bumper performance and full crash safety.

When I look at Acura's safety ratings, I would be very surprised if this were an unsafe car.

ottoman · 03-02-04, 07:46

GoodnClean,

Your link is for frontal offset crashes only. I dont think this is a much more valid claim for safety than a bumper test. More accidents are from bumper-bumper than any other kind. I think that people have to take both in to consideration when evaluating safety. Not just scores from front, or side, or rear. Need to take a look at all available data.

That being said, not much info available on the TSX other than this bumper safety test. So, maybe the best thing to do is wait till the car is fully tested in all components of crash safety before we can make any certain conclusions of its safety.

BW · 03-02-04, 07:52

Umm, 5 MPH bumper tests aren't about safety. They're about saving money in parking lot situations.

The Acura TSX/European Honda Accord did very well in European NCAP tests.

http://www.euroncap.com/content/safe...?id1=3&id2=169

It got four stars overall, the same as BMW 3-series, Mercedes C-Class, or Volvo S80. Plus, in case you hit a pedestrian, those weak bumpers earned the car two green stars in pedestrian safety... the highest in its class.

Quote:

Originally posted by ottoman
GoodnClean,

Your link is for frontal offset crashes only. I dont think this is a much more valid claim for safety than a bumper test. More accidents are from bumper-bumper than any other kind. I think that people have to take both in to consideration when evaluating safety. Not just scores from front, or side, or rear. Need to take a look at all available data.

That being said, not much info available on the TSX other than this bumper safety test. So, maybe the best thing to do is wait till the car is fully tested in all components of crash safety before we can make any certain conclusions of its safety.

Inzane · 03-02-04, 08:24

Quote:

Originally posted by ottoman
So if the bumper does not absorb the energy of the impacts, guess what does. Thats right, the frame. If these minor tests affect the frame and cause damage imagine what an accident with more force can do.

If these light accident tests cause this much damage to bumper and not protect other components from damage the frame will be damaged. What else is there to absorb the damage if the bumper fails??? It makes perfect sense that if the frame is gonna be absorbing more damage than it should,

I think what you may have missed, and the author of the article, is that a "bumper" and a "bumper cover" are NOT the same thing. This is poor journalism for them not to distinguish the difference. Quite often on the modern car the bumper cover or front fascia is a sacrificial piece that will self destruct, crack or otherwise be in need of repaint and/or replacement after an accident. The condition of the bumper cover in no means reflects on the relative effectiveness of the actual BUMPER that's behind it. That's the part that's actually protecting the frame and the rest of the car and the occupants from the major shock of the accident.

Yeah when you crack/destroy the fascia on any recent car and you're going to be looking at several hundred dollars in repairs. And of course Japanese and European cars are generally going to cost more to fix because their parts are usually more expensive than your typical cheaply made domestic fare.

RadMon · 03-03-04, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Inzane
Yeah when you crack/destroy the fascia on any recent car and you're going to be looking at several hundred dollars in repairs. And of course Japanese and European cars are generally going to cost more to fix because their parts are usually more expensive than your typical cheaply made domestic fare.

Exactly. I consider the test to be one of the cost of repair and not related to safety (except in maybe the most minimal of fashions).

The bumper _cover_ on the TSX is HUGE, is not domestic and needs to be painted by the body shop to match the car color. This all adds up to more $ to fix a cosmetic problem and why I think the TSX performed so poorly in this test. But if you want to play with the bigger boys you'd better be willing to pony up to the table with bigger bucks.

What's a real stickler is how the new Chevy Malibu scored just as poorly but it's a $20k domestic. I can see why Chevy went out of their way to be quoted in the article as saying they would work on correcting this.

As I said earlier, I'll wait for the full crash test results before I start telling people they better rethink their choice if they're leaning toward the TSX.

P.S. Nice Z, Jason! At one time I owned a '91 TT Black Diamond Pearl.

BW · 03-27-04, 02:38

Quote:

Originally posted by ottoman
That being said, not much info available on the TSX other than this bumper safety test. So, maybe the best thing to do is wait till the car is fully tested in all components of crash safety before we can make any certain conclusions of its safety.

And here are the 40 mph results:

http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0405.htm

GoodnClean · 03-28-04, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by ottoman
GoodnClean,

Your link is for frontal offset crashes only. I dont think this is a much more valid claim for safety than a bumper test. More accidents are from bumper-bumper than any other kind.

Thats actually not true at all. Thats why the offset crash tests were implemented, because people complained that the dead on bumper on bumper tests were not realistic. Think about it, what is more likely, hitting a car or something at a weird angle, or square on perfect? Its 1 in 100 that you'd hit it square on perfect. Real car accidents are almost always offset.

And offset is the MORE DIFFICULT test to do well at, cars dont do well on the offset and poorly at the straight on. They do well at the straight on and poorly at the offset. You need a new source of information.

Quote:

And here are the 40 mph results:

Surprise surprise, its a best pick

MarkPinTx · 04-29-04, 08:45

I have had a TSX for a month. I'm pushin 40 but unmarried, so a 4 door is kind of a must, but actual room is not required.

I can afford much more car (TL, CTS, G35, 330, 540). If you have a value-oriented bone in your body (aka cheapskate), the TSX is hands-down the most car for the money.

The handling is TERRIFIC. As is the interior. And unless you are Rodney Racetrack, the power is ample. On the highway it pulls like crazy.

Test drive one!

Oh yeah. Fuel economy is excellent. C/D (who never gets off BWM's jock) top 10. And JD Power IQ survey top entry luxury.

Hard.

To.

Beat.

funkbucket007 · 05-02-04, 01:46

I've owned my Carbon Gray, 6-MT, Navigation, Ebony interior TSX since early Janurary & wouldn't trade it for the world at this point. It's been a supurb vehicle. I have a 20 month old son & there is ample room in the backseat for his car seat & a very generous trunk space. On a recent trip to Orlando (from Tennessee), I observed a 31 mpg average, which is fine with me. The power isn't anything spectacular, but faster than the truck I replaced it with & faster than my wife's '99 Civic Si. On the highway it has really impressed me with the power in the upper-RPM range though. Handling is fairly neutral for a FWD car. I couldn't recommend this car enough & am sure that after a test drive, you'll feel the same. On the note of safety ratings, it has received 5-star all around except for (I believe this is right) a rear side impact (where it received a 4-star rating). So that is something you can sleep easy knowing.

GO Dawgs · 05-02-04, 02:25

First detail since joining the site. NXT.First detail since joining the site. NXT.

jrocc1212 · 05-02-04, 08:09

If safety is key, I wouldn't go with the Altima. The doors felt light as heck when I tried one out and the liightest wind blew them wide open. Was't looking out for that, but there it was. Great engine, mediocre car.