What would you rather have, more options or less KM?
 

I'm looking into buying a fuel friendly daily driver and have come across two acura TSXs for sale.

1. 2004 TSX, base model but only has 38,000 km on it
2. 2005 TSX fully loaded with navi, has just over 100,000 km on it.

both are the same price, which one would you rather have?
I looked on TSX club and retrofitting OEM navi or installing aftermarket navi into a TSX is a pain in the ass. I don't really care about navi, I do care about having bluetooth though.... so what do you think?

I assume you meant 100,000km (100K km)...
38,000 is mighty low for an 04...personally I would choose low km but.....sth smells fishy :P

That's js me hah
Posted via RS Mobile

i would lean towards option #1. less clicks on the car may mean a better condition of the car. it really depends on how the owner drove it/maintained it. also assuming here you are talking about 100,000km.

i would go for 2004, since it is a big difference for the odo, but its up to you, if the owner of the 2005 model did proper maintanence, then it should be fine...

but ya, my vote still goes to the 2004

Isn't 2004 the first MY of a new generation? I'd go for the 2005. There's always issues from the 1st MY of a new gen that get patched and refined for subsequent MYs.

I'd be more interested in how the car was maintained.

My uncle had a 14 year old car that never broke 50K but he only worked 5km from home and never really warmed the car up. The car never really got to operating temp before he shut it down for 9 hours and made the same commute home. Fluids/belts never got changed cause he went off his mileage and not age. There were times when he didn't have to fill his tank for 8+ weeks. My aunt started driving the car shortly after (longer commute) and within 6 months had to replace all the belts, waterpump, exhaust and the fuel tank and pump.

Extreme case but you get my drift.

if resale is important to you, get the lower km one.

I would say go for the first one with lower km's as well.

but wouldn't resale hold better for a vehicle that is newer, with more options and has a normal amount of km? the average on the 2005 car is under 20,000 km per year...

Def option 1, given that there's no other issues involved with it. There's no way I'd pick that 100k+ mileage car just because it's got bluetooth and navi.

are TSX's fuel friendly?

well it's a 4 banger that takes 87... how bad can it be?

i'd say less Kms

I thought there was a debate on whether 87 was fine or midgrade was recommended.

get the first one, and then get a BT headset

I have read that all honda engines take 87 unless they are the Type R/S models which require premium due to higher compression

TSX's require premium

Therefor, a full tank of gas would cost about $85 bucks with the current prices.

You be lucky to hit 500km in city driving.

TSX engine will adjust to run on 87. Some people have reported better mileage with the lower octane and no ill effects over 120k miles.

BUT

Premium is recommended by the manufacturer and the engine has an 11:1 compression ratio.

2004 TSX, 20/29mpg
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19528.shtml

2005 TSX 20/28mpg
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20658.shtml


both require "premium dude.... PREMIUM"

17.1 Gallons to fill the tank 66.7 liters.

66.7 liters x $1.45 ( 91 octane) = $96.71 a tank.... for 354 miles... aka.. 566kms.

So $100 tank goes 575kms, with a light foot.

Tank capacity is 65L, but the fuel light comes on when there's about 8L left, so actual fill up is rought around 55L to 60L.

So the cost is about under $85 bucks.

Still hella expensive.


EDIT: It's still not as bad as the G35 people who has to pay about 120 bucks to fill up their tank :troll:

I would keep looking. The TSX doesn't seem all too fuel efficient seeing those above numbers.

ya maybe i should just keep my car haha... my V6 mercedes gets about 500km to a tank of 91 so i guess thats not that bad?

IIRC most newer Acura's use premium (minus the RSX base and CSX).

Any interest in 4cyl Accords? They use 87.

OP
regarding the low mileage TSX
Did u actually 'see' this car yet?

A few rsers have trouble viewing the car according to the posts in the cars for sale.
Posted via RS Mobile