[xpl0sive]

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?

[FI-Z33]

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 (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Alby]

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.

[dark0821]

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

[Presto]

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.

[fliptuner]

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.

[toyota86]

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

[jaemc]

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

[xpl0sive]

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...

[flagella]

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.

[MWR34]

are TSX's fuel friendly?

[xpl0sive]

are TSX's fuel friendly?

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

[Gh0stRider]

i'd say less Kms

[fliptuner]

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

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

[Volvoman]

get the first one, and then get a BT headset

[xpl0sive]

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

[TypeRNammer]

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



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.

[fliptuner]

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.

[MWR34]

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

[TypeRNammer]

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:

[jing]

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

[xpl0sive]

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?

[fliptuner]

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

Any interest in 4cyl Accords? They use 87.

[604nguyen]

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

[TypeRNammer]

A few rsers have trouble viewing the car according to the posts in the cars for sale.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[xpl0sive]

ya the guy got back to me about it, but i havent gone to see it yet...

[604nguyen]

A few rsers have trouble viewing the car according to the posts in the cars for sale.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

haha exactly why i was asking,
someone i know wanted to look at it last night but the guy flakes out last minute
and weird how the thread on the buy and sell regarding this car is gone

but ill give the benefit of the doubt :whistle:

[JordanLee]

both require "premium dude.... PREMIUM"

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dceB3SKBw9w

DUUUUDDEE

[Great68]

Seems like such a waste to need to use premium for such a low output motor.

[jpark]

get the 2004 with low mileage., its still a tsx so even if its the "base" model, how much "base" can it really get?

[asian_XL]

what's the price difference?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TypeRNammer]

get the 2004 with low mileage., its still a tsx so even if its the "base" model, how much "base" can it really get?

How can the OP get it if the person trying to sell it keeps flaking out :troll:

[Energy]

Get the base with low kms. Wasn't the only option for the car the tech package with navi? Fully loaded TSX is different from a fully loaded 3 series.

[604nguyen]

So my buddy gave this guy the benefit of the doubt and made arrangements to see it right now. Waiting for him at the moment, he told to meet him right now. Buddy Calls him and says
"hey I'm here right now"
Seller says. " sorry I'm showing the car right now to somebody else"
Buddy: " how long will you be?" ( Seller already made arrangements to meet at 7)
Seller : " I don't know , I'll call u when I'm done"


What a piece of work this guy is.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TypeRNammer]

So my buddy gave this guy the benefit of the doubt and made arrangements to see it right now. Waiting for him at the moment, he told to meet him right now. Buddy Calls him and says
"hey I'm here right now"
Seller says. " sorry I'm showing the car right now to somebody else"
Buddy: " how long will you be?" ( Seller already made arrangements to meet at 7)
Seller : " I don't know , I'll call u when I'm done"


What a piece of work this guy is.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

what a fucking piece of shit

[604nguyen]

what a fucking piece of shit

ok my apologies, showed the car, he was a little late but o well

[TypeRNammer]

ok my apologies, showed the car, he was a little late but o well

over reacted, sorry :troll:

[Sw0op]

I would take neither....

2005 too high clicks for me
2004..even tho low clicks were notorious for A/C and radio issues where you had to get the center peice repaired/replaced for a couple thousands....

id say just wait it out and find something youre more comfortable...

for the record i have a 05 tsx...if you have any questions feel free to let me know
i have also gotten 500kms a tank before with just city driving

[icemiko]

If I was you I'd keep looking, I have a TSX and I'll tell you this.

2004 is the 1st year of the TSX so that's the year that'll have the most problems if any. Check out TSXclub.com on the common problems experienced for the 04 TSX.

2005 TSX's actually do not have bluetooth and the navi is useless since it's 6 yrs old and all the maps will be outdated. The 06+ is the year you want if you want bluetooth.

Also, the TSX requires 91 although I have seen people put in 87 and 89 and it's not really that good on gas, on a full tank you get around 450-500km (80% city driving) and it cost like $80 to fill up.

[vafanculo]

are TSX's fuel friendly?

Lol, noob





Psych
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Cman333]

I would go the lower KM route. You'll need to do more maintenance which in the end would cost more than those options.

You can easily add a new DVD player + navi for around 1K in the TSX.

[swfk]

I have a 07 TSX non-navi and I *HATE* the bluetooth. To set it up you have to record your voice the numbers that you think you would call often. The system stores up to 20 or 30 numbers I can't remember exactly.

I didn't store past 6 numbers because the voice recognition is horrible while trying to dictate your voice as you say the numbers out. When you want to call someone you say "Call <name>" the system will ask "Would you like to call <another damn name>" cuz names that are close will mix up.

Numerous times where I end up calling the wrong person. The bluetooth system on the TSX (07' non-navi at least) is horrible.

As for fuel economy, it's decent on 6MT. Highway I can manage 6.8L/100km and city I'll do about 11L/100km. 91 octane from Petro-Canada. Not sure about 5AT

[jack3d]

04

[hk20000]

at that kind of fuel economy and price OP might as well get a TL Type S...

[hear-it-first]

Based on the info you have given, I would say right off the bat that option #1 would be better. Why? Because the car will last longer and will probably have a greater value in the future than if you chose option #2.

How is having a navi installed a hassle when you can let someone do it for you? If you ever do want it later on, and you have the money, and that all things are possible, then it shouldn't be a problem. As for bluetooth, do you want the pleasure of speaking back and forth with your stereo? If so, wouldn't it be better to invest in a bluetooth headset, in exchange for a better valued car? Have you thought about privacy concerns when others are in your car while you are on your integrated bluetooth?